State X has a law requiring that all cars have a functioning muffler. The law’s sole purpose is to protect all the state’s citizens against noise pollution. Donna violates the law when her muffler falls off her car while she is driving on a busy freeway. Pete, a citizen of State X, suffers damage to his car when it is damaged when after colliding with the muffler. Pete sues Donna under negligence per se. Will he recover? Why or why not?
Goofy Dave starts a fire that soon consumes Poor Paula’s trailer. Dave did not know that the trailer was occupied and had no reason to know this, but it was. After rushing into the trailer to save her child, Paula is severely burned. Paul sues Dave in negligence. Assuming that Dave has breached a duty, what two arguments might he make in defense? Assume that the traditional negligence defenses apply. Will these arguments work here?
Sociological jurisprudence has a tendency to say that, when interpreting and applying the law, courts should pay attention to changing social values and let the law reflect those new values. How is this different from the natural law approach, which also talks about values?
Stare decisis says that like cases should be decided alike. Yet the common law is able to evolve and change. How can this apparent inconsistency be resolved?