A sports bar that had not paid a required pay-for-view fee exhibited a videotape of a restricted boxing match that had been made and brought to the bar by a patron who apparently had paid to view the match at home. An investigator visited the bar during the video boxing match, violations were discovered, lawsuits were commenced, and the defendant failed to serve an answer.

Please choose the best answer.

a. The bar will lose because it is seeking to attract customers by showing restricted events and must first obtain the necessary license and pay appropriate fees.

b. The bar will lose because the result was a default judgment against the bars entitling the plaintiff to damages.

c. The sports bar will win because it is paying taxes from the customers it attracted making it okay to show the video.

d. The sports bar will win because the video was recorded and not live.

2. A change supplier selling customers slot machine tokens, which she carried in a Velcro change belt tied around her waist. Depending on the number of tokens in the belt, it could weigh as much as 50 pounds. All change attendants had their own storage container known as a change bank, which was stocked with buckets of tokens delivered on a mobile change cart. When the plaintiff's change bank ran low, she ordered additional tokens from a slot attendant who brought the token order to her in buckets on a mobile change cart. The buckets had handles and weighed approximately five to ten pounds. All change attendants were required to lift the buckets from the change cart to their individual change bank. They then replenished the change belt from the change bank. One day, while lifting the buckets, she suffered a back pain for which she sought treatment. It was diagnosed as a dorsal spine sprain and required physical therapy. She was permanently restricted from lifting more than 35 to 40 pounds.

Please choose the best answer.

a. The plaintiff is unable to show that the casino caused her back condition.

b. The employer's duty is to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

c. The plaintiff should not carry such heavy points in her bag.

d. The employer should have provided the plaintiff with a mobile cart to carry the change rather than wearing a heavy change belt and lifting buckets of tokens.

3. Sarina was playing the slot machines at a casino for several hours. A waitress periodically approached her and offered her free drinks. After drinking 10 beers she became angry and violent when the player next to her won a major jackpot. Security was called and Sarina was taken to the security office. Security personnel determined that she was very intoxicated. What duty does the casino owe to Sarina under these circumstances?

a.None of the above.

b. The law protects the casino from patrons like Sarina.Limited duty of care is owed to Sarina.The casino should offer her coffee, tea, or water to quickly make her sober.

c. The legal obligation to exercise reasonable care is imposed on the casino when ejecting an inebriated customer. This legal duty applies likewise to hotels and restaurants. Casinos must exercise care for Sarina's well-being while she is in the custody of the casino. She should be escorted to her room or provided transportation to her place of residence, her home, or wherever she is staying.

d. Sarina was not a paying patron at the casino, therefore security personnel has no duty of care to her but to the paying patrons in the casino.Sarina appeared to be argumentative and combative.For safety out of concern for the other patrons, security should escort her out of the casino.

4. U.S. v. Lansdowne Swim Club 894 F.2d 83 (3rd Cir. 1990)

The Lansdowne Swim Club (LSC) ... a nonprofit corporation, is the only group swimming facility in the Borough of Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. Since its founding in 1957, LSC has granted 1400 full family memberships. Every white applicant has been admitted, although two as limited members only. In that time, however, LSC has had only one nonwhite member.

The uncontroverted experiences of the following Lansdowne residents are significant. In 1976, the Allisons wrote to LSC requesting an application but LSC did not respond. Dr. Allison is black; his three children are part-black. In 1977, the Allisons twice again wrote for an application but LSC did not respond. The following year, the Allisons repeated the procedure with similar results. In 1983, the Allisons filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership but were rejected.

The following year, the Ryans filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership. Nonetheless, they were rejected. Two of the Ryans' adopted children are black. The Ryans then complained to the media and picketed LSC, joined by the Allisons. In 1986, the Iverys, who are black, filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership. Nonetheless, they were rejected (as were the Ryans and Allisons who had again applied).

The United States alleges that LSC is a place of public accommodation ... which has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing membership to blacks because of their race or color, in violation of [the Civil Rights Act]....

LSC's first argument is that it is a private club. Under [the Civil Rights Act], "a private club or other establishments not in fact open to the public" is exempt from the statute... . LSC has the burden of proving it is a private club... . Although the statute does not define "private club", cases construing the provision do offer some guidance.

The district court distilled eight factors from the case law as relevant to this determination, three of which it found dispositive of LSC's public nature: the genuine selectivity of its membership process, its history, and the use of its facilities by nonmembers. LSC disputes these findings fore, even if membership approval were considered a fifth criterion, it would not make the process any more genuinely selective in this case.

The district court also found the yields of the membership process indicative of lack of selectivity. Since 1958, LSC has granted full memberships to at least 1,400 families while denying them to only two non-black families. LSC contends that emphasizing the few instances of non-black applicant rejection "misconstru[es] the significance of selectivity. The crucial question should be whether the members exercised their right to be selective rather than the statistical results of the exercise of that right."...

[F]ormal membership requirements have little meaning when in fact the club does not follow a selective membership policy... . We find the evidence of lack of selectivity convincing.

a. Neither A or B

b. Both A & B

c. The Club had an objective and truly selective criteria and measured each potential member against those criteria. The membership owns the property, and the Club's decisions were made by the Club's board of directors; hence, the Club was managed by its members. The use that nonmember residents made of the facilities was limited

d. LSC would have won the case if the number of members it accepts are limited, adopt

objective and truly selective criteria for membership, obtain adequate information about each applicant to make an informed decision about whether he or she qualifies, and measure each potential member against membership criteria.