2. Explain, explain, explain. I need to see your analysis in order to understand how you got to your resolution. .
3. Remember, don't be swayed by emotion.Back up your answers with legal principles from the book or your notes.

Good luck!

1. Military-Industrial Chemicals (MIC) is an Illinois corporation, with its only offices and manufacturing plants in Illinois. Most of its business is within Illinois, although it has one customer in Nevada to which it regularly delivers nitrous oxide.

Reading Railroad is a Pennsylvania corporation which regularly picks up MIC's deliveries in Illinois and delivers them to its customer in Nevada.In addition, Reading regularly makes deliveries in Missouri and Kansas for other customers unrelated to MIC.Reading Railroad is responsible for maintaining all of the engines and cars which it owns, as well as the track on which its trains run.

Casey Jones is an employee of Reading Railroad and a Wisconsin resident.Casey, an engineer, has never worked the Illinois-Nevada route before the day of the accident described below.

MIC ordered Reading to deliver several rail cars full of nitrous oxide to its customer in Nevada.Its usual practice was to order the rail cars, which would be delivered to MIC's plant, filled with the chemical, and transported to the railyard to be hooked up with other cars, which are then made into a train for delivery to Nevada.On the day in question, special cars marked "nitrous oxide" were delivered to MIC's plant to be filled with the chemical.Unfortunately, the car was mistakenly filled with nitroglycerin instead of nitrous oxide.Neither MIC's employees nor Reading Railroad's employees noticed the mistake at the time the car was filled.

Casey Jones took charge of the train as it left the railyard and began its trip west.While passing through Kansas, Casey noticed that the train was running a little bit late.He therefore increased the train's speed to 75 m.p.h., although the railroad's own regulations specified that a train of that size should run through Kansas at a speed no greater than 65 m.p.h.

Shortly after the train increased speed, it crossed over an area where several of the rails were warped and some of the ties were missing.This area caused excessive vibration to the train, including the cars filled with nitroglycerin, which immediately exploded.

Peter Plaintiff, a Kansas resident, was waiting for the train to pass at the railroad crossing at the time of the explosion.His car was overturned, destroying his car, and seriously injuring Peter.

Assume that all of the following additional facts are true:

1. A jury would find that Peter suffered a total $100,000 in damages.

1. The explosion would not have happened if the railroad cars had been filled with nitrous oxide instead of nitroglycerin.

1. The explosion would not have happened if the engineer had been going 65 m.p.h. or

less at the time the car crossed the warped spot on the tracks.

1. The explosion would not have happened if the track had been properly maintained.

1. Peter Plaintiff would not have been injured as severely if he had stopped his car at the warning sign, where the "stop" line was painted on the street, instead of crossing the line and proceeding closer to the track to await passage of the train.

1. A jury would assess 55% of the fault to Reading Railroad, 35% of the fault to MIC, 2% of the fault to Casey Jones, and 8% of the fault to Peter Plaintiff.

1. Name every possible state in which Peter Plaintiff could sueallof the defendantsinone lawsuit.Explain your answers.

1. In a traditional common-law state (negligence-contributory negligence), how much, if anything, will Peter Plaintiff recover? Explain.

1. In a pure comparative negligence state, how much, if anything, will Peter Plaintiff recover?Explain.

1. In a "modified" comparative negligence state, how much, if anything, will Peter Plaintiff recover?Explain.

1. You are the general manager of a company called TWD, Inc. ("TWD" stands for "Toxic Waste Dump." TWD is a Missouri corporation which runs several toxic waste disposal and dumping sites in the state of Missouri.Many of your best customers are companies in Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska.

Last year, the Missouri legislature became concerned about the problem of shrinking landfill space within the state.The legislature was also concerned about the transportation over Missouri roads and railroad tracks of shipments of toxic waste, and the hazards that could be caused if such shipments became involved in accidents on the way to a disposal site.In response to these concerns, the legislature passed the following law.

From and after January 1, 2019,no person, firm, or corporation in Missouri shall solicit, advertise, or otherwise invite the importation into this State of toxic solid waste.No person, firm or corporation in Missouri shall accept any shipment from outside the state of Missouri of any such toxic solid waste.

Violation of this statute shall carry a fine of no less than $1,000 for each violation, and/or, at the discretion of the Court, imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections for a period of two to five years.

As an officer of TWD, your concern is that this law will effectively put your company out of business, as so much of your customer base is located outside the state of Missouri. Your company continues to advertise in industry journals, as well as continuing to accept shipments from established customers in other states.You believe the law is unconstitutional, and you want to challenge application of the law to your company.

1. Explain the bases for your constitutional challenges.

1. Will any of your challenges be successful? Why or why not?

1. Stormy Monday is a Missouri corporation engaged in the business of making raincoats, boots, and other associated rain wear for the retail market. The corporation is publicly traded.

The company's research and development department came up with a new compound, named DRI, which, when added to other materials, increased the water-repellent capabilities of Stormy's products by 25%.Stormy planned an entire new product line around goods made with the DRI additive, and committed substantial design and advertising dollars to this product line.

During the advertising campaign, but before the actual release of DRI-enhanced goods, Stormy's chief operating officer was informed by his product engineers that new test results that demonstrated that laboratory mice wearing tiny little boots made with DRI had a 37% greater incidence of toe cancer than mice who wore regular boots.After discussing the issue with the board of directors, the chief operating officer decided to proceed with the release of the new product line, and to suppress any information regarding the study.

1. If you purchase DRI-enhanced rainwear and subsequently develop toe cancer,

do you have an action against Stormy Monday?Be specific in your answer as to why or why not.

1. If you purchase DRI-enhanced rainwear and subsequently develop brain cancer

(although you never wore their rain hats or hoods), do you have an action against Stormy

Monday?Again, be specific in your answer.