Chapter 4

Law and Conflicting Interest

 

Intro.

1. World is full of competing claims. Social engineers, like Roscoe Pound, believe that the law determines which claims are recognized and which are denied.

 

2. Pound’s approach to the law

 

1. Results that work are repeated again
2. Jural postulates

                                                              i.      People need to know other people will not act aggressively toward them

                                                           ii.      People need to own what they create by their own work or ingenuity

                                                         iii.      People need to expect to make transactions with others in good faith. Therefore, they must make good on promises, carry out their undertakings, and deal fairly with unanticipated situations.

                                                          iv.      People expect others to act reasonably so as not to injure others.

                                                            v.      People expect that those in control of dangerous things will use care to avoid injuring others.

3. Legal system reflects morals of the day

 

4.1 Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead, Galanter

          a. Legal world has two types of players, the one shotter and the repeat player

          b. Repeat players tend to be institutions, like the government, insurance companies, big firms

          c. One shotters tend to be individuals or smaller companies

          d. See chart on p. 78 for typical situations

          e. See chart on p. 82 for advantages and incentives for each situation

 

4.2 Case of the Spoiled Chiles, Nader

          Facts: Truck hit basket of chiles. Owner blamed truck driver. Truck driver blamed owner of truck for not giving him more help.  Also, he said no one should put chiles on road where trucks drive.  Magistrate said he was leaning toward chile owner, and asked him to bring in chiles. About 1.5 kg were damaged, valued at 3 pesos. Trucker agreed to pay, magistrate told owner to be more careful in the future.

          See questions.

 

4.3 Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone, 20 A. 900 (Md. 1890)

          Facts:  P owns 5 houses, one of which used as hotel/pub.  Next door is fertilizer factory, which pollutes and causes health problems for people in houses.

          Issue: Can P sue for nuisance? Holding, Yes.

          Reasoning: It is well settled law that property owner may not interfere with rights to neighboring owners to use and enjoy their property. Court also rejected a coming to the nuisance argument. The court also refused to allow evidence of how much money was invested in the factory.

 

4.4 Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., 83 S.W. 658 (Tenn. 1904)

          Facts: Two factories process copper ore. They pollute a lot, causing the neighboring properties great problems. A large number of the people in the area depend on the factories for their livelihoods.

          Issue: Can P obtain an injunction forcing the factories to shut down?

          Holding: No. Plaintiffs are limited to their remedy at law, damages.

          Reasoning: Equitable remedies must be limited. If in doubt, let plaintiff go for damages. Court also indicates plaintiffs delayed in seeking the injunction. Court also mentions the political consequences of ordering the factory shut down.

 

4.5  SKIP