You do not need to write out the questions. However, you must write out your responses in complete sentences. Please be very thorough and detailed. This is your opportunity to "show-off" what you learned this week.

• Chapter 6:
  • Question 6-1. Defamation. Richard is an employee of the Dun Construction Corp. While delivering materials to a construc-tion site, he carelessly backs Duns truck into a passenger vehi-cle driven by Green. This is Richards second accident in six months. When the company owner, Dun, learns of this latest accident, a heated discussion ensues, and Dun fires Richard. Dun is so angry that he immediately writes a letter to the union of which Richard is a member and to all other con-struction companies in the community, stating that Richard is the worst driver in the city and that anyone who hires him is asking for legal liability. Richard files a suit against Dun, alleging libel on the basis of the statements made in the letters. Discuss the results. (See Intentional Torts against Persons.)
  • Question 6-6 Negligence. Charles Robison, an employee of West Star Transportation, Inc., was ordered to cover an unevenly loaded flatbed trailer with a 150-pound tarpaulin (a water-proof cloth). The load included uncrated equipment and pal-let crates of different heights, about thirteen feet off the ground at its highest point. While standing on the load, manipulating the tarpaulin without safety equipment or assistance, Robi-son fell and sustained a traumatic head injury. He filed a suit against West Star to recover for his injury. Was West Star neg-ligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work, as Robison claimed? Explain. [West Star Transportation, Inc. v. Robison, 457 S.W.3d 178 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2015)] (See Unintentional TortsNegligence
• Chapter 7:
  • Question 7-2. Product Liability. Jason Clark, an experienced hunter, bought a paintball gun. Clark practiced with the gun and knew how to screw in the carbon dioxide cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. Although Clark was aware that he could purchase protective eyewear, he chose not to buy it. Clark had taken gun safety courses and understood that it was common sense not to shoot anyone in the face. Clarks friend, Chris Wright, also owned a paintball gun and was similarly familiar with the guns use and its risks.Clark, Wright, and their friends played a game that involved shooting paintballs at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Clark and Wright were cruising with their guns, Wright shot at Clarks car, but hit Clark in the eye. Clark filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of Wrights paintball gun to recover for the injury. Clark claimed that the gun was defectively designed. During the trial, Wright testified that his gun never malfunctioned. In whose favor should the court rule? Why? (See Product Liability.)
  • Question 7-3 Strict Product Liability. David Dobrovolny bought a new Ford F-350 pickup truck. A year later, the truck sponta-neously caught fire in Dobrovolnys driveway. The truck was destroyed, but no other property was damaged, and no one was injured. Dobrovolny filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Ford Motor Company on a theory of strict product liability to recover the cost of the truck. Nebraska limits the application of strict product liability to situations involving personal injuries. Is Dobrovolnys claim likely to succeed? Why or why not? Is there another basis for liability on which he might recover? Explain. [Dobrovolny v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Neb. 86, 793 N.W.2d 445 (2011)] (See Strict Product Liability.)