case problem 42.2. Study case and requirement . The requirement is to complete the questions in the case and also answer the first two questions : 1. apply all element of negligence to the case 2. were those injuries forseeable by best western? why or why not?

exx certifications CASE 42.2 James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002) FACT SUMMARY After a rampage shooting by 14-year-old Michael Carneal at his Kentucky high school resulted in the deaths of three of his classmates, the parents and estate administrators of the victims (collectively "James") filed a negligence lawsuit against several companies that produced or maintained certain movie, video game, and Internet websites (collectively "Meow Media"), claiming that these movies, games, and websites had contributed to Carneal's homicidal state of mind. The lawsuit relied on a post-shooting investigation that revealed that Carneal had regularly played violent video games that depicted a player shooting at video characters, watched movies that glamorized violence, and viewed pornographic Internet sites produced by Meow Media. James argued that these activities 'desensitized" Carneal to violence and caused a lethal state of mind that led to the shooting spree. The lawsuit contended that Meow Media's production and distribution of this material to high school-aged students constituted negligence and also triggered strict liability under Kentucky's products liability law. The U.S. district court dismissed the negligence claim and ruled that Carneal's actions were not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty of reasonable care on the defendants with respect to the victims. The district court also ruled that the movies, video games, and Internet sites were not "products" as defined in state strict liability statutes. SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of Meow Media. The court used a negligence analysis in which the duty of care is defined by whether the harm to the injured party resulting from the defendant's negligence was foreseeable. Specifically, the court held that, except under extraordinary circumstances or where the parties had a "special relationship," individuals generally are entitled to assume that third parties will not commit intentional criminal acts. Therefore, it was not objectively reasonable for Meow Media to foresee that Carneal would commit any criminal act and, thus, no duty was owed to James. Moreover, the court held that even if a duty did exist, James could not meet the requirements for proximate causation because Carneal's intentional, violent actions constitute a superseding cause of James's damages and severed Meow Media's liability for the death of Carneal's victims. The court also upheld the dismissal of the products liability claims against Meow Media because Kentucky law does not recognize video game cartridges, movie cassettes, and Internet transmission as sufficiently tangible to constitute products in the sense of their communicative content. WORDS OF THE COURT: Foreseeability "This court has encountered this foreseeability inquiry under Kentucky law before in a situation similar to this case. [In that case] 8:18 AM Type here to search O B N 9 * calls 7/21/2020uuid-36ea / 54dfact4bb 1ab80199add1cde8d%5D!%2F4%2F2%5Bdata-uuid-be372e700423... * ..- dug/ Jules | ugj Home - tamusa.edu > Form BN-900E: TW... WORK corresviewdoc.do Q Q x certifications Carneal's intentional, violent actions constitute a superseding cause of James's damages and severed Meow Media's liability for the death of Carneal's s. The court also upheld the dismissal of the products liability claims against Meow Media because Kentucky law does Il cognize video game cartridges, movie cassettes, and Internet transmission as sufficiently tangible to constitute products in the sense of their communicative content. WORDS OF THE COURT: Foreseeability "This court has encountered this foreseeability inquiry under Kentucky law before in a situation similar to this case. [ In that case ], the mother of a suicide victim sued [the video game manufacturer] for manufacturing 'Dungeons and Dragons.' ... We held that the boy's suicide was simply not a reasonably foreseeable result of producing the game, notwithstanding its violent content. To have held otherwise would have been 'to stretch the concepts of foreseeability and ordinary care to lengths that would deprive them of all normal meaning.' WORDS OF THE COURT: Liability for Intentional Criminal Actions "Arguably, the defendants' games, movie, and internet sites gave Carneal the ideas and emotions, the 'psychological tools,' to commit three murders. However, this case lacks such crucial features of our jurisprudence in this area. First, the defendants in this case had no idea Carneal even existed, much less the particular idiosyncrasies of Carneal that made their products particularly dangerous in his hands. [ ... ] Second, no court has ever held that ideas and images can constitute the tools for a criminal act under this narrow exception." Case Questions 1. Why did the court hold that Meow Media could not have foreseen the damages caused by Carneal? 2. Was there a special relationship duty in this case? Why or why not? 3. Focus on Critical Thinking: What type of evidence might bolster the plaintiffs' theory of the case? If they could prove that scientific evidence existed that there was a correlation between the video games, the desensitization, and violence, would that be enough? Why or why not? Page 786 Landowners Landowners owe a general duty to parties off the land from any unreasonable risks to them caused by something on the land. Courts use aah - O X Connect - Class. BLAW X M MHE Reader X Case Problem Assignme X New Ta J.learn.xythos.prod/5a31af5ddf9d4/3268309?response-cache-control=private%20%20max-age%3D21600&re tamusa.edu Form BN-900E: TW... WORK corresviewdoc.do @ @ certifications Case Problem Assignment 2: Please address all of the things asked for in the bullet points: 1. Case Summary 42.2 found on page 803. Apply all elements of negligence to the case. Were these injuries foreseeable by Best Western? Why or why not? . Answer all three questions in the textbook