1. Helen toured a townhouse built by Thames. While inspecting the kitchen, she opened a cabinet; the cabinet door fell and struck her on the head. An examination revealed no screws were affixed to the door to secure it to the cabinet. She filed suit against the cabinetmaker and offered proof of her injury, relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Should she recover? Explain.
2. The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused entirely by the defendant. The plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt. He was thrown from his car and sustained a compression-type injury to the lower back when he landed on the pavement. The defendant offered evidence that had the plaintiff been wearing his seat belt, he would not have been thrown from the car. If the doctrine of comparative fault is followed, will this fact reduce the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? Explain.
3. A Montana tavern served beer to Michael, who was already intoxicated. Michael admitted that his speech was thick and that he was staggering when he ordered his last beer. Later, he drove his car on the wrong side of a highway and killed the plaintiff. A suit was brought against the tavern operator for wrongful death. A Montana statute prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons. Is the tavern liable? Why or why not?