1.Ryder leased a truck to Florida Food Service; Powers, an employee, drove it to make deliveries. He noticed that the door strap used to close the rear door was frayed, and he asked Ryder to fix it. Ryder failed to do so in spite of numerous requests. The strap broke, and Powers replaced it with a nylon rope. Later, when Powers was attempting to close the rear door, the nylon rope broke and he fell, sustaining severe injuries to his neck and back. He sued Ryder. The trial court found that Powers' attachment of the replacement rope was a superseding cause, relieving Ryder of any liability, and granted summary judgment for Ryder. Powers appealed. How should the appellate court rule?

2.Kelly went ice-skating on a neighbor's frozen swimming pool and fell through a thin part of ice, sustaining serious injuries. Kelly did not have permission to be on the land and the neighbor did not know she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Kelly's injuries? Explain both possibilities.

3.Officer Trottier stopped Marie Winfield for driving 20 miles over the speed limit. He then became suspicious because her son would not make eye contact and she was eating a Powerbar in a "hurried manner." The officer asked for and Winfield granted him permission to search her car. During the search, he found a letter, which he read. Has he committed an illegal search? Explain.

4. IRAC analysis on the following case:

An undercover drug informant learned from a mutual friend that Philip Friedman "knew where to get marijuana." The informant asked Friedman three times to get him some marijuana, and Friedman agreed after the third request. Shortly thereafter Friedman sold the informant a small amount of the drug. The informant later offered to sell Friedman three pounds of marijuana. They negotiated the price and then made the sale. Friedman was tried for trafficking in drugs. He argued entrapment. Was Friedman entrapped?

Argument for Friedman: The undercover agent had to ask three times before Friedman sold him a small amount of drugs. A real drug dealer, predisposed to commit the crime, leaps at an opportunity to sell. If the government spends time and money luring innocent people into the commission of crimes, all of us are the losers.

Argument for the Government: Government officials suspected Friedman of being a sophisticated drug dealer, and they were right. When he had a chance to buy three pounds, a quantity only a dealer would purchase, he not only did so, but bargained with skill, showing a working knowledge of the business. Friedman was not entrappedhe was caught.

Issue:

Rule of Law:

Analysis:

Conclusion: