Week 3/ Q4. One summer afternoon, a plaintiff-motorist pulled off a country road to stop at a farmer's market. Buying some of the freshly picked produce, the plaintiff-driver prepared to get back on the road. When the motorist of vehicle No. 2 braked to let the plaintiff back on the road, vehicle No. 3 rear-ended vehicle No. 2, which then hit the plaintiff's car. The incident led to a chain-reaction accident, with the driver of vehicle No. 5 striking vehicle No. 4, which hit vehicle No. 3. How should the court determine who is liable for damages to the plaintiff's car, since it seems that the plaintiff played no role in bringing about the collisions and none of the drivers seem to have intended to cause any of the collisions?

Week 5

1. A plaintiff drives to work along a toll road; using public roads would add an hour, in each direction, to plaintiff's commute. The defendant's employee is driving a tanker truck filled with solvents. The truck tips over, blocking the toll road for the entire day. The plaintiff learns of the accident before getting on the toll road and takes public roads. If the plaintiff filed suit for a private nuisance against the tanker's owner, will that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted? Why or why not?

3. A new restaurant is opening up on the ground floor of a city block. That means around 6 a.m. every day, a produce truck stops to deliver what the restaurant would need for that day's business. Next door is a condo complex. One of the condo owners wants to sue the restaurant for creating a private nuisance. If the restaurant files a motion for summary judgment, what is the court's likely ruling?

5. A gang operates in a neighborhood. Local law enforcement has not succeeded in prosecuting any gang member. Would the presence of this gang in the neighborhood constitute a public nuisance? Why or why not?

7. A plaintiff owns thousands of acres of forested lands that are regularly logged. The defendant operates a laboratory in the back of a van, making illegal drugs. The manufacturing process creates toxic waste, which the defendant dumps out of the back of the van and drives away. Law enforcement succeeds in catching the defendant manufacturing the illegal drugs on the plaintiff's property and charges the defendant for having committed crimes related to the manufacture of the illegal drugs. Could the plaintiff-landowner sue the defendant for private nuisance because of the toxic waste dumped on the property? Why? Would the situation change materially if the defendant dumped the toxic waste elsewhere but used the private logging roads on the plaintiff's property to manufacture the illegal drugs? Why?