written response to problem 5 in chapter 1 (p. 1-31) of the textbook

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

Chapter One The Nature of Law 1-31 A state constitution and a treaty that has been rati- fied by Congress. 3. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), a federal statute, provides for penalties against anyone who \"by force or threat of force or by physical obstruc- tion . . . intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes . . . with any person . . . in order to intimidate such person.... from obtaining or providing reproductive health ser- vices.\" Two persons, Lynch and Moscinski, blocked access to aclinic that offered such services. The federal government sought an injunction barring Lynch and Moscinski from impeding access to, or coming within 15 feet of. the clinic. In defense, the defendants argued that FACE protects the taking of innocent human life, that FACE is therefore contrary to natural law, and that, accordingly, FACE should be declared null and void. A federal district court issued the injunction after find- ing that Lynch and Moscinski had violated FACE by making entrance to the clinic unreasonably difficult. On appeal, the defendants maintained that the district court erred in not recognizing their natural law argu- ment as a defense. Were the defendants correct? . Many states and localities used to have so-called Sunday Closing lawsstatutes or ordinances forbid- ding certain business from being conducted on Sun- day. A few may still have such laws. Often, these laws have not been obeyed or enforced. What would an extreme legal positivist tend to think about the duty to enforce and obey such laws? What would a natural law exponent who strongly believes in economic freedom tend to think about this ques- tion? What about a natural law adherent who is a Christian religious traditionalist? What observation would almost any legal realist make about Sunday Closing laws? With these laws looked at from a soci- ological perspective, finally, what social factors help explain their original passage, their relative lack of enforcement today, and their continued presence on the books despite their lack of enforcement? ith Rawlins and his daughter, Jenna, attended the July 0, 2012, baseball game between the Cleveland Indians and the Baltimore Orioles. That night, following the game, the Indians were hosting a post-game fireworks display. As a result, the Cleveland Fire Department ordered that certain sections of spectator seating had to be vacated prior to the display. The Rawlinses' seats were in one of those sections. Rawlins and his daughter claimed that ushers indicated that they had to vacate their seats prior to the end of the game. Though they did not want to leave, they complied, and as they pro- ceeded up the steps to leave the stadium, Rawlins was struck in the head with a foul ball. Rawlins was seri- ously injured as a result, and Jenna suffered emotional trauma from seeing her father injured in this way. They sued the Indians. Based on the discussion of the com- mon law \"baseball rule\" in the Coomer case in this chapter and the precedents that applied and declined to apply it, if you were the judge in this case, would you apply the baseball rule to shield the Cleveland Indians from liability or would you distinguish this case from those where the baseball rule applies? Why? . Linda Hagan and her sister Barbara Parker drank from a bottle of Coke that they both agreed tasted flat. Hagan then held the bottle up to a light and observed what she and Parker thought was a used condom with \"oozy stringy stuff coming out of the top.\" Both women were distressed that they had consumed some foreign mate- rial, and Hagan immediately became nauseated. The bottle was later delivered to Coca-Cola for testing. Con- cerned about what they had drunk, the women went to a health care facility the next day and were given shots. The medical personnel at the clinic told them that they should be tested for HIV. Hagan and Parker were then tested and informed that the results were negative. Six months later, both women were again tested for HIV, and the results were again negative. Hagan and Parker brought a negligence action against Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola's beverage analyst testified at trial that he had initially thought, as Hagan and Parker had, that the object in the bottle was a condom; however, upon closer examination, he concluded that the object was a mold and that, to a \"scientific certainty,\" the item floating in the Coke bottle was not a condom. There is case law that lays out the so-called impact rule in negligence claims. The rule requires that before a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress, she must demonstrate that the emotional stress suffered flowed from injuries sustained in an impact. Nonethe- less. there are a number of exceptions to the impact rule, in which a lack of physical impact would not pre- clude an otherwise viable claim for emotional distress. Those exceptions include bystander cases, wrongful birth cases, negligent stillbirth cases, and bad-faith claims against insurance carriers. Other courts had found that ingestion of a contaminated product could serve in the place of the traditionally required impact. Given that Hagan and Parker's claim is in common law, how should the court go about determining whether the impact rule applies to their case