Question-1:

Please read the hypothetical below and and click on the above link to respond to the questions.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Don Streater is driving his new Mustang on a two-lane road, Highway 101, on the outskirts of town. The speed limit on Highway 101 is 45 miles per hour. Albert Hunt is also driving on Highway 101, heading in the opposite direction from Streater. Hunt looks to his passenger seat to find a map, when he veers across the center line into Streater's direction of travel. The two cars collide; luckily, neither man is killed, but Streater is seriously injured. In financial terms, his medical injuries, medical expenses and pain and suffering are estimated at approximately one hundred thousand dollars.

Streater sues Hunt, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence at trial establishes that defendant Hunt was traveling at 50 miles per hour, that he had consumed three beers at lunch approximately 30 minutes before the accident occurred, that he has 20/50 uncorrected vision, and that he was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses at the time of the accident. Evidence at trial also establishes that plaintiff Streater was traveling 50 miles per hour at the time of the accident, and that he was not wearing his seat belt when the collision occurred.

QUESTIONS:

Should the jury return a verdict in favor of Streater in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars (representing his medical injuries, medical expenses, and pain and suffering,) plus the associated costs of litigation? Does it matter whether the state in which the accident occurred recognizes the contributory or comparative negligence doctrine? In not wearing his seat belt, did plaintiff Streater "assume the risk?"

Question-2:

(Comment on this Discussion)

The police efforts constitute entrapment. Townsend has not been accused of any acts of pedophilia since 1985 and it was the local police that took it upon themselves to move against Townsend. Considering Townsend himself is embarassed of his past and that he had been living a normal life since 1985 as well as ignoring the circular for 17 months; that conveys to me that he would not have committed the crime had it not been for the local police operation against him. Even though I consider this case as an example of entrapment and therefore the charges against him to be dismissed, I believe Townsend should be court ordered to supervision or counselling because he clearly is still tempted by his urges. I do not consider punishing the authorities responsible for the entrapment morally justifiable. The local police force had good intentions of trying to remove a known pedophile from their community and while it was good initiative to try to see if Townsend is still a pedophile, it was bad judgement to entrap him.

Question-3:

( Comment on the Discussion of 12 Angry Men)

1) One of the major themes of the play is not judging a book by it's cover. At the outset, the case seems pretty cut and dry with the boy clearly guilty but as the jurors talk about the intricacies of the case, more and more doubt enters the juror's minds. The jurors convey this motif because nearly all of them were ready to convict the boy at the begining but because of juror eight and his need to think it through the other jurors are made aware of holes in the case. The jurors number three, four, six and ten are all deadset on convicting the boy for murder. Whereas jurors eight and eleven are more open to exploring different aspects of the class.

2) It was interesting to see comercials from the 50s because they were still showing ads for products that we see today like a dish washing machine. Something different between the ads today and the ads in the video is that the spokespersons conducting the ads were all women with the implication that they are also housewives selling to other housewives. In more comtemporary ads, the demographic is more varied with all sorts of people as the spokesperson.