Assignment Instructions: Read Case 10.4 from Bagley, Chapter 10-8e (pages 273-274), James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002), and answer the following questions about this case:

1.This case involved a lawsuit filed by the families of shooting victims after a high school shooting. The victims families sued Meow Media, Inc., which makes and sells video games, alleging that the defendants games had desensitized the shooter to violence. The first theory on which this claim rested was negligence, and the second theory was strict product liability. According to this courts opinion, what elements must a plaintiff prove to prevail on a claim of negligence?

2.Regarding the negligence claim, why did the court find that the defendant (video game manufacturer) in this case did notowe the shooting victims a duty of care?

3.Regarding the negligence claim, why did the court find that the defendant in this case did not breach any duty of care to the shooting victims?

4.Regarding the negligence claim, why did the court find that the plaintiffs in this case could not prove the element of proximate cause?

5.In the end, the defendant video game manufacturer was not liable under the tort of negligence. Imagine the following, slightly different scenario. In this scenario, rather than providing a minor with a violent video game, a defendant, a 22-year fraternity brother, buys alcohol and supplies that alcohol to minors (underage drinkers) at a fraternity party. If one of those minors then drives drunk and injures a third person in a car accident, should the 22-year fraternity brother who purchased and supplied the alcohol be held liable for that third persons injuries? Why or why not? What role might the concept of foreseeability play here?

6.Regarding the strict product liability claim, why did the court find this argument deeply flawed?