課程名稱︰英美侵權行為法乙 課程性質︰法學組必選 課程教師︰葉俊榮 開課學院：法律學院 開課系所︰法律學系 考試日期（年月日）︰2008/06/17 考試時限（分鐘）：take home exam 是否需發放獎勵金：是 （如未明確表示，則不予發放） 試題 : 1. Question One Please analyze these issue briefly. A. Please sketch the relationship between statutory violations the establishment of negligence in light of the cases that we discussed in the class. B. Information and decision-making have been identified as critical elements in allocating liability. Please further elaborate this point by reference to case we covered in the class. C. Proportionality and all-or-nothing are two extreme positions in negligence and causation articulation. Please analyze in light of the cases you read in the clase. 2. Question Two: Please analyze the following case. In a reaction to widespread use of Viagra among males, some women groups have petitioned for speedy approval of RU520, an after sex oral contraceptives first developed by Abbaloota Pharmaceutical Corp. In short of further positive testing by Abbaloota to counterblance laboratory test indicating reasonable doubt of causing blood clotting, RU520 has been pending formanufacture permit by Food and Drug Administration for more than seven years. As pressure from pro-life group, women's advocate groups and activist Comgressperson Anan Topaz is mounting, Surgeon General Diego Gonzaga has agreed to grand a five years provincial permit to Abbaloota for manufacturing and distribution RU520 in a Congressional public hearing, but latter added the following conditions: 1. Abbaloota has to do continuous testing on possible risks to human health. 2. Abbaloota has to set aside one billion US dollars in preparation for possible compensation. 3. RU520 is to be classified as a prescription drug. 4. Warning as to possible threat to human health, including stroke has to be clearly provided. 5. Abbaloota has to issue a booklet to physicians indicating mandatory wanring to patients about NO SMOKING and NO EXECESSIVE SEX. In the end, Abbaloota did get the permit under the above mentioned conditions except the one billion compensation fund. These all happened when you were a third year student at Yale Laww School. Five years latter, you joined Peters, McGarity and Yeh as an associate attorney specializing in tort liability. On one sunny day, Tanya Lee was introduced by Latina Wonders, a senior partner and your director supervisor in the law firm, complaining about sudden stroke of her daughter, Pat Muir, after took 2 RU520 after sex. Latter you learned from your assistant that cases like this have been pending in almost every state of the United States. Ms. Wonders directed that you write a memo analyzing this case for her. She trusted your wisdom and emphasized a "full and complete" analysis is what she wants. Well, Ms. Wonders highlighted the following for your reference. 1. Should we take this case? If so, whom are you going to sue? 2. What factual investigations in your judgement are critical to initiate this case? 3. You found the warning label on the containing box indicated blood clotting instead of stroke, how are you going to argue on the basis of that? 4. Our client admitted that Pat did smoke heavily and sleep around. But they know nothing about possible linkage between taking RU520 and personal lifestyle. Physician never mentioned that ! How are you going to argue for possible comparative negligence claim by defense attorney? 5. Suppose our client were granted a big sum of compensation thanks to our successful argument in the court. You began to review what happened beyond an attorney's position. What are your thoughts on gender impact of the case? Hey, do you mind professor Yeh take a look at your memo? --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.124.250.2