· web viewplaintiff’s lawyer (jumpin’ jack flash) contacts edward expert, seeking to recruit...

Civil Procedure Two Prof. SlomansonFinal Examination Fall 2015(Two-hour P.T. essay) Exam# _______

TABLE OF CONTENTS PageInstructions ............................................................................................................ 2

FILEComplaint ………………………………............................................................... 3Plaintiff’s Core Disclosures ................................................................................... 4Defendant’s Core Disclosures ................................................................................ 4Motion to Compel Mental Examination (Q #3) ..................................................... 4Motion to Share Expert (Q #4) ............................................................................... 5Deposition Transcript ............................................................................................. 5Motion for Judgment (Q #5) .................................................................................. 5

LIBRARYCONSTITUTION ……….………………………………………………................... 6 RULES …………………………………………………………………….….…... 6 STATUTE ................................................................................................................. 6

of 18

Memorandum

December 15, 2015 To: Job Applicant Fm: Managing PartnerRe: Instructions

You do not represent either side in this litigation. Regarding format, please use the “IRAC” method you likely used in law school. Your task is to provide the respective arguments for the issues presented below. You should also reason to a conclusion for each issue.

This exercise consists of six pages. There are five questions presented in the attached FILE . The LIBRARY does not contain all relevant legal resources. Not every scrap of information in the FILE and LIBRARY is necessarily relevant.

The dates in this exercise do not present any issue. Assume that all motions are in proper form, properly signed, and timely submitted. Good luck, MPManaging Partner

of 18

FILE

Pat Prat, an individual ) ) v. ) )David Doolittle, an individual )

United States District CourtSouthern District of CaliforniaCivil Action No. 654321-AJB

COMPLAINTPersonal Injury

File Date: May 1, 2015

1. This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. §1983 (excessive force) and the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure). 2. Officer David Doolittle pursued Pat Prat in a high speed chase on El Cajon Boulevard, in San Diego, California. Four miles after the chase began, Doolittle terminated the episode by employing a Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) maneuver, which is designed to cause the fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop. The PIT instead caused Prat to lose control of Prat’s vehicle. It abruptly left the street, rolled down an embankment, violently overturned, and then crashed into an occupied home. 3. Defendant Doolittle’s actions threatened the safety of all drivers in the vicinity of this incident, including plaintiff Prat. Doolittle’s use of excessive force, combined with his unreasonable method of seizure, thus resulted in Prat being rendered a quadriplegic. 4. Whereupon plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his injuries, including severe pain and suffering, in the amount of $5,000,000.00, and such other damages as will be proven at trial.

Signed: Jumpin’ Jack Flash Dewey, Cheatem, Bilkem & Howe

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Question #1: The defendant responds with an attack on the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ). The judge, who considered the SMJ motion to be frivolous, denies this motion. Can the defendant now appeal the trial judge’s SMJ decision?

of 18

More Facts: Assume the appeal is unsuccessful. The parties timely exchange the following documents. [The bracketed italicized inserts below indicate deleted material that is not in issue.]



PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL CORE DISCLOSURES

Date: August 3, 2015

Plaintiff submits the following initial core discovery:Name: Pat PratLocation: J.J. Flash, Offices of Dewey, Cheatem, Bilkem & Howe (plaintiff’s attorney) Subject Matter: [proper description provided]

Name: David DoolittleLocation: Nancy Grace, Offices of Last, Hope & Chance (defendant’s attorney)Subject Matter: [proper description provided]

Name: [Prat properly discloses all health care witness and related document information]



DEFENDANT’S INITIAL CORE DISCLOSURES

Date: August 4, 2015

The defendant submits the following initial core discovery:Name: David DoolittleLocation: Nancy Grace, Offices of Last, Hope & Chance (defendant’s attorney)Subject Matter: [proper description provided]

Name: Pat PratLocation: J.J. Flash, Offices of Dewey, Cheatem, Bilkem & Howe (plaintiff’s attorney)Subject Matter: [proper description provided]

Question #2: What additional information should/could be included in these disclosures?

More Facts: The defense commences its post-core discovery. It seeks plaintiff’s physical and mental examinations by qualified doctors. Plaintiff objects to a mental examination. The defense files a motion seeking a mental examination of Pat Prat.

Question #3: How should the court rule on the defense Motion to Compel Mental Examination?

of 18

More Facts: Nancy Grace (defense attorney) retains the services of Mr. Edward Expert. Edward is the San Diego engineer who designed the Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) and its associated device—used by Officer Doolittle to stop Prat’s fleeing vehicle (as described in the complaint). Expert, who is the best PIT expert in the country, will be assisting Ms. Grace with the defense of this case.

Plaintiff’s lawyer (Jumpin’ Jack Flash) contacts Edward Expert, seeking to recruit Expert to assist with plaintiff’s case. Expert advises Flash that Expert cannot help the plaintiff. Expert recommends that Flash hire the only other qualified PIT device engineer. That is Elaine Feng, who lives in San Francisco, CA.

Flash instead files a motion with the court, seeking an order which would allow both law firms to use Edward Expert at this early stage of the case.

Question #4 : How should the court rule on plaintiff’s motion to share Edward’s expertise?

More Facts: Assume the court denies plaintiff’s motion to share Edward Expert’s services. Ms. Grace subsequently designates Edward Expert as her trial expert. Jack Flash takes Edward Expert’s deposition. A portion of the deposition transcript appears immediately below:



DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT of DEFENDANT’S EXPERT

Edward Expert, B.S., Ph.DDate: October 1, 2015

* * * Q: Did Officer Doolittle properly apply the Precision Intervention Technique (PIT), as you designed it? A: Yes. He used the PIT, and executed the associated maneuver, exactly as it was designed to be done.Q: So his application of the PIT was flawless? No mistakes with how he undertook the procedure? A: Correct—there were no mistakes. Doolittle applied the PIT process in textbook fashion. No one could have done it better than Doolittle, when he applied it during the incident which is the subject of Prat’s complaint.

More Facts: The case proceeds to trial, with no stipulations about liability or damages. Plaintiff Prat’s trial evidence is limited to the physical injuries resulting in his becoming a quadriplegic. The only defense evidence is Edward Expert’s testimony—which is exactly as Expert stated it in his deposition (Officer Doolittle’s perfect execution of the PIT maneuver on Prat’s vehicle). The jury holds for the plaintiff. The defense makes a post-verdict Motion for Judgment.

Question #5: How should the judge rule on the defendant’s post-trial Motion for Judgment?

of 18

[End of FILE ]

of 18

LIBRARY

CONSTITUTIONAMENDMENT IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ***. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 26(a) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES.

(1) Initial Disclosure. (A) In General. *** a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have

discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

(ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses ***;

(iii) a computation of each category of damages ***; and (iv) *** any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all

or part of a possible judgment in the action ***.

Rule 35(a) ORDER FOR AN EXAMINATION. (1) In General. The court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or physical condition—including blood group—is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.

Rule 26(b) DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS. (1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional ***.

Rule 50 JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN A JURY TRIAL. (a) JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense. ***

(b) RENEWING THE MOTION AFTER TRIAL; ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

STATUTE42 U.S.C. §1983 CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State *** subjects *** any citizen of the United States *** to the deprivation of any rights *** secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.*** [End of LIBRARY ]

of 18

Slomanson CP II Issue Outline Note: “@” = complaint / “±” = not

#1: Appellate Jurisdiction• SMJ decision = C.O. • SCt stingy re C.O. ± w/i Cohen • routine motion/no big deal • 1292(b) joint discretion appeal • TC: mo “frivolous” • SMJ ± controlling Q • ± likely diff opinion • reversal likely delay ultim dispo • writ route (NARLy) • no other (appellate) remedy • must extraordinary order SMJ • not inherently extraordinary • obvious FQ b/c excess force/seiz claim

#4 M otion to Share Expert • WP gist/prep for trial • Ed Exp = “early stage” consultant• conditional WP • pierce if substantial need • con: conflict of interest • pro: local expert cheaper • but if grant, share cost• Edward = “best” • always a best • another in-state qualified expert • only two qual PIT experts in country • Elaine = San Fran • ± know if she’s available • if not, grant motion to share Edward • distance = econ hardship? • San Fran close enough?

#2: D isclosure Completeness • gist initial required disclosures Wit identities: • parties • “drivers in vicinity” • home occupant(s)? Relev docs/things • police report (chase/citations) • PIT manual • one/both vehivles • P no computa damages • 5M demand/“such other damages”• D no insur cover

#5 Motion for JudgmentGist: • insuff evidence (50b) • no reasonable jury non-moving (P)• inferences favor non-moving (P)Waiver: • must have been in-trial 50a motion• facts silentEvidence:• P “limited...quadraplegic” (dam only) • no stip re liab • no liab evidence excess force • no liab evidence unreas seizure• D evid ± help P -> just PIT execution • P burden prove causation (Denman) • absence force/seiz liab evid = must grant 50b

#3: M ental Examination • in controversy & good cause • mental more invasive than physical • severe pain & suffering (@ ¶4) • typical allegation general damages • no Schlagenhauf trigger; e.g., IIED • ± mental just b/c running fm police • grant = viol rt privacy

of 18

Sample Student AnswerQuestion 1Appellate Review

There are several avenues to obtain an immmediate appellate review. An

immediate appellate review may be granted if the issue is too important for denial of an

immediate apellate review or if there's no adequate remedy at law. First, issue for which

appellate review is sought must be on the merits or collateral to them. The courts are

hesitant to grant appellate review because it doesn't want a financial able plaintiff to

wage war on two fronts.

Here, Defendant Doolittle (D), is seeking appellate review of the trial court's

decision of D's response attacking SMJ of the court. SMJ would not be considered an

issue on the merits, but collateral to them.

Thus, the issue of SMJ is collateral.

Collateral Order

An order which is collateral to the merits is automatically appealable. The issue

being appealled must be the standard set forth in the Cohen court. There's no clear cut

definition established under Cohen, the issue may not be appealable, even if it's

collateral. Under the Cohen court, it's hard to get appellate review because of its

stringent requirement.

Here, D is seeking appeal of trial court's decision against him for attacking SMJ.

Under the Cohen test, which limits which issues are appealable, even if the issue is

collateral, the courts may be reluctant to grant appellate review because they don't want

other appeals of SMJ to possibly flood the courts..

Thus, the court is not likley to grant appellate review and D would have to look at

other avenues to acheieve appellate review.

Interlocutory Decision

Under interlocutory decision, the trial judge and appellate judge both have to

ceritfy and grant review of the issue.

of 18

Controlling Question of Law

Under the controlling question of law requirement, the issue should be at the

heart of the case or important to it.

Here, the issue being appealed the SMJ, but the issue at the heart of the case is

whether or not D used excessive force unreasonable seizure of P, which led to P being

personally injured and becoming a quadriplegic when D used the PIT manuever to stop

P in a high speed chase. The issue the party is seeking to appeal is not the decision at

the heart of the czse

Thus, D would be unable to establish tere is a controlling question of law.

Difference in Opinions

The difference in opinions is based on whethere there is a jurisdicaiton split on

opinions.

The courts generally have the same opinion in regards to SMJ. The issue of SMJ

provides the courts the power to hear cases that falls within its jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the courts will consider if the issue is a novel item or debateable. SMJ isn't

a novel item and has been written law under which courts operates across the country

and there is a general consensus on the courts regarding SMJ.

Thus, D is unlikely to establish a difference in opinions regarding SMJ.

Materially Advances Ultimate Disposition

Under materially advances ultilimate disposition or if reversed would change the

outcome of the case if granted.

Here, the court's refusal to grant D's attack against SMJ is unlikely to materially

advance the outcome of the case. P's complaint arises under a federa statute and rights

provided under the US constitution. D may argue that without the appellate review, it

would materially advance the case by P against him, but this is unlikely to be viewed as

correct. Lack of SMJ doesn't prevent a case from going forward and P would be able to

refile in a court that had SMJ if trial court had decide in favor of P.

Thus, D is unlikely to establish this element.

Joint Discretion

of 18

The trial judge and appellate judge must certify the issue for review since both

the courts are acting as mutual gatekeepers.

Here, the trial court judge consudered D's SMJ motion to be frivilous and denied

his motion. Although the appellate judge could certify D's motion, both trial and

appellate judges needs to certify the motion to establish appellate review.

Thus, D is unable to obtain ceritfication required under joint discretion.

D would have to try and obtain apellate review under the last aveue of Writ.

Writ

The last avenue to obtain appellate review is through writ route. The appellate

court would have discretion to grant review if the issue is too important to deny

immediate review or if there is no adequate remedy at law, but no clear standard.

Factors to consider will be if the issue is an extraordinary circumstance.

Here, D may try to obtain appellate review through writ since it requires only the

discretion of the appellate court. D may argue that lack of appellate review of the SMJ

issue would too important. Although this denial would permit P's case to go forward, the

jury may still find in favor of D once the case has been tried before them. Furthermore,

SMJ isn't considered an extraorindary circumstance in which Writ can be used to seek

appellate review. D may argue that without appellate review, there's no adequate

remedy at all since P's complaint is seeking $5 million in compensatory damages as

well as other damages proven at trial. D, as a police officer, would not be able to sustain

such a verdict against him and that he needs the appellate review to prevent such

possible verdict. The appellate court lis likely to deny writ due to SMJ not being

enough of an extraordinary circumstance to grant appellate review

Thus, D is not likely to obtain appellate review through writ.

Conclusion

Thus, D is not likely to obtain immediate appellate review to appeal trial judge

SMJ decision.

Question 2

of 18

Initial DIsclosures/Core Discovery

Discovery is a process at the beginning of a action in which the party reveal and

obtain relevant information to each other. Each party should include 1) identity of

witnesses, 2) relevant documents, 3) computation of damages, and 4) insurance

information.

Fact Witnesses

A party should reveal the name of each witness, and if known, the telephone

number and address of each witness likely to have discoverable information and the

subject of that infomration. If this information is unavailable, the the party should include

a general description of the witness.

Under P's initial disclosure, P provided the name its healthcare Ws who may

have discoverable information as required. Under D's initial disclosures, D didn't provide

the identifying information of any witnesses that may lead to discoverable information

relating to his claim or defenses. The facts are silent as to whether or no P has any

witnesses, but considering the accident took place on a busy street and led to P

crashing into a home, D should be able to have some witnesses available, even if he

currently doesn't have their name, telephone number or addresses. P's stated that D's

action threatened all other drivers in the area and there should be other drivers or even

passerbys who witnessed the accident that D could call on.

Thus, P satisfies this requirements, but D should enclose information about D's

witnesses.

Relevant Documents

The parties should exchange all non-privilege, relevant documents relating to the

case. Including copies, or description by category and location of all documents,

electronically stored information (ESI) and tangible things that the disclosing party has

in its possession, custody and control which may be used to support its claims or

defenses.

Here, P disclosed the related documents information in regards to his claim

against D. D should not provide any information relating to his claim or defenses. D

of 18

should include such documents such as a police incident report that would have been

filed after the accident. D could include tangible item such as the footage from his police

vehicle that is likely to be installed in his car. This would provide footage, if available, of

the car chase and the crash that followed, which could support D's defense against P's

claim.

Thus, P satisfies this requirement, but D should include the additional information

required.

Computation of Damages

The parties should provide documentation supporting their computation of each

category of damages sought in the complaint. The documents should support the nature

and extent of the pain and suffering alleged in the complaint and damages sought.

Here, P is seeking compensatory damages of $5 million based on his injuries,

including severe pain and suffering. The facts states that P provided related document

information, but it's unclear if this includes documentation that supports the nature and

extent of Ps injury alleged in the complaint. If this is not included, P should include this

documentation in his initial disclosure. D isn't required to submit computation since D

isn't seeking damages from P.

Thus, P should include documents for computation of damages.

Insurance Information

The defendant should turn over any insurance information that may provide

coverage for part or all of any possible judgment.

Here, D didn't include relevant insurance information that could cover part or all

of any damages sought by P against D and recoverable in any possible judgment. As a

police officer, D may have insurance provided by his employer to cover any issues that

creates a liability to D during the course of his employment. D should provide this

documentation in his intitial disclosure to P as required if he's found liable and judgment

is entered against in court. P is not required to provide any insurance information to D

since D isn't seeking any damages against P.

Thus, D should provide insurance information to P.

of 18

Question 3Examination

A court may order a party to undergo a mental or physical examination. The

requestiing party must establish that the party's condition is 1) in controversy and 2)

good cause for the examination. The courts are reluctant to grant a mental examination

because it's more intrusive than a physical examination and may violate a party's

privacy rights.

In Controversy

A party's condition must be in controversy for the court to order an examination.

A party's condition is placed in controversy if the lawsuit filed by the party place's the P's

condition in controversy and damages sought are based on this condition or if D's

condition are placed in controversy in the pleading.

Here, P is seeking compensatory damages for his injuries and states he is

suffering from severe pain and suffering due to his injuries. P, as a result of his injuries,

is a quadriplegic, which means he is paralyzed from the neck down. P placed his

condition in controversy when P stated in the complaint they're suffering from severe

pain and suffering. Although P object, D may argue that since P placed his condition in

controversy, he should be required to submit to a mental examination. However, this

argument would fail because extent of P's physical injury would lead to severe physyical

pain and suffering could be physical and mentally. The suffering her is likely related to

Ps physical injury. If P had stated he was under emotional distress, D may have an

argument for requesting the mental examination (although this is likely to fail since it's

not intentional). The facts indicate that the condition in controversy is primarily

physyical.

Thus, P's mental condition is not in controversy.

Good Cause

The party requesting the examination must establish there's good cause for the

examination. Courts will scrutinize this request to ensure that the requesting party is not

abusing the discovery process.

of 18

Here, D doesn't have good cause to request the mental examination. D's request

for the physical examination can be argued for good cause becuase the injury P has as

a reuslt of the accdient and D's uses of the PIT maneuver. D may argue that he has

good cause because of the severe pain and suffering alleged in P's complaint, but this

may not be enough to establish good cause.

Thus, he is unlikely to establish good cause for mental examination.

Conclusion

The courts are usually reluctant to force a party to undergo a mental examination as it is

more intrusive than a physical examination. However, due to the extent of the P's

physical injuries, the court may deny D's req

Motion to Compell

Under a motion to compell, a party may request the court to compell a party to

follow an order if the party can establish it is in good faith and certify that the parties

have attempted to work previously to the motion being filed.

Here, D commenced its post-core discovery and sought P to have mental and

physical examination by qualified doctors. The facts imply that P complied with phsyical

examination, but objected to the mental examination. D may be able to argue that he

acted in good faith when he sought the mental examination, but this will be scrutinized

as there's not strong reasoning in seeking a mental examination of P. The courts would

be able to prove that D and P have worked together when suggest that P went along

with the phsyical exam request.

Conclusion

Thus, the courts are likely to deny D's motion to compell mental examination of

P.

Question 4Scope of Discovery

Any party may seek any non-privileged, discoverable inforomation that is

of 18

relevant to the parties claims or defense. The information sought does not need to be

admissable so long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissable information.

Here, P is seeking information, specifically Expert's expertise while he is working

for D's attorney, to support it's claim. Although the information have may be

discoverable, it's likely to be privileged under work product of a consultant.

Consultantt Witness

Edward Expert (EE) is an expert retained by D's attorney and EE is person who

deisgned the PIT and it's associated device. EE, as a expert in his field., may fall under

2 designations of witnesses. if EE is just a consultant, he is not deisgnated to testify at

trial and he would fall under conditional privilege and if he is being paid to testify on D's

behalf, he would be waive any privilege. The facts seems to indicate that EE is being

hired to hired to help with defense, as a consultant rather than designated witness and

as such, he would fall under conditional privilege.

Attorney Work Product

Under attorney work product, any information prepared by the party's attorney or

represenative in preparation for litigation is privileged. There are two types of privilege,

absolute and conditional/qualified privilege.

Here, D's attorney could argue that acquiring EE's services for D's defense would

make the expert's mental impression fall under work product as it is being prepared in

anticipation of trial. As such, this could lead to EE's work producting being conditionally

privileged.

Conditional Work Product

Under conditional work product privilege, a party may request to obtain

conditionally/qualified privileged information if the requesting party can establish a

substantial need for the information and the party's unable to secure a substantial

equavlient without facing undue hardship.

Here, EE as a consultant expert, his mental impressions and work with D's

attorney would be protected by conditiational privilege as his expertise is being used in

of 18

anticipation of trial. EE, as the foremost expert in the country, P may argue there is a

substantial need for his work as it related to D's claims and defenses. The court is likely

to consider if P's attorney is being lazy and not seeking out other avenues to achieve

the information he need. Although EE is a best expert, he isn't the only one. Elaine Feng

(EF) is another qualified expert recommended by EE when P's attorney tried to hire EE

for his case. EF would be a substantial equivalent to EE and would be able to provide

the information P need. P may argue that D is located in San Francisco, which would

place an undue burden of trying to acquire EF's service to help with P's case. The court

is unlikely to agree with P because EF is located within an 8 hour drive or 90 minute

fllight from San Diego and procuring her services in San Diego, while may be a little

costly, does not qualify as an undue hardship on P.

Thus, the court is likely to rule against P's motion to share EE's expertise.

Conclusion

Thus the court should deny P's motion.

Question 5Renewed Motion For Judgment (Post-Verdict)

A motion for judgment (MFJ) is made during the trial and before the jury has

reached its verdict and a renewed motion for judgment (RMFJ) is made after the jury

has reached its verdict, usually within 10 days after the verdict is entered into the court's

docket.

Here, the fact are silent if D made a MFJ during trial, which is a condition

subsequent to RMFJ. Assuming that D made an MFJ, the court would allow D to make

post-verdict MFJ, also known as RMFJ, which should have been done 10 days after

jury's verdict entered the court's docket.

No Reasoable Jury Could Find for Non-Moving Party

Here, D, as the moving party requesting RMFJ, has to prove that no reasonable

party could have found for P. The jury held for P as the evidence was limited to P's

physical injuries resulting in him becoming a quadraplegic. Although EE's deposition

of 18

stated that D did used the maneuvered exactly as done and without any mistakes, D's

actioned caused for P's severe injury and thus, a reasonable jury could still have found

for P based on his physyical injuries alone. If P alleged that D had negligently or

intentionally caused P's injuries, D may have an argument in his favor once EE's

testimony has been included. Based on the severity of P's injury, a reasonable party

could have found for P.

Thus, D is unlikely to establish this element.

Insufficient Evidence

Under this requirement, Insufficient evidence to create a question for the jury to

decide on.

Here, Ps evidence was limited to physical injuries. As the judge is not able to act

as a 13th juror under RMFJ, the judge may only consider if there's a geniune dispute of

fact. The fact at issue is whether or not D is liable for P's injuries. P's injuries were

caused by D using the PIT maneuver during the high speed care chase. This caused

P's car to violently roll down and embankment, overturn and crash into someone's

home. The fact of who caused P's injuries is not disputed. EE's testimony on D's proper

usage doesn't change the fact that D caused P's injury. There's sufficient legal basis for

the evidence presented the court and the jury to fnd for P.

Thus, D is unlikley to establish there's insufficient evidence under RMFJ.

Conclusion

Thus, the judge should deny D's post-trial motion for judgment.

END OF EXAM

of 18