Starting Off Right in Law School, Second Edition by Nygren Carolyn J

Author:Nygren, Carolyn J. [Nygren, Carolyn J.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Carolina Academic Press
Published: 2011-06-30T16:00:00+00:00

This is a case that is being appealed by Ms. O'Dell citing as the error of the judge that the wrong jury instruction was given. It is not clear just what instruction Ms. O'Dell requested because the court says the definition of reasonable expectation was not in the instructions “given or requested.” This then may be an example of something very unusual—a court deciding an issue that had not been presented to it by a party. Since William s is not binding precedent for this court, it still must rule that reasonable expectation is the rule to be followed. However, much of the opinion deals with its definition of reasonable expectation , meaning the “probability” not just “possibility” of finding the offending substance. There is also a section quoting evidence given at trial. This court must decide if the jury would have come to a different conclusion if the jury instructions had included the explanation that “the term ‘reasonably expected’ involves more of a probability than just a possibility.” Only then can it conclude that the jury instructions as given constituted “prejudicial error” and Ms. O'Dell needs a new trial.

This case gives you an opportunity to consider the concepts of defenses and burden of proof. In this case the defendant answered Ms. O'Dell's complaint by pleading defenses in the answer. The defendant is in essence saying that even if what the plaintiff says is true, I cannot be liable to the plaintiff because the law excuses me. DeJean's defenses are assumption of risk, unavoidable accident, contributory negligence and “that a pearl can be reasonably expected to be found in oysters.” As a defense it means that the defendant must prove that the pearl was reasonably to be expected. It is not the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that it was not reasonably to be expected.

Importance of the case

If you were an Oklahoma lawyer with an implied warranty of merchantability case, this case would be very important. Although it was not decided by the highest court, the highest court refused to hear the case. You know this because there is a notation at the beginning of the case “Certiorari denied.” This means that the highest court in Oklahoma decided to let this opinion stand. This may mean only that the court had more important cases to decide. However, it also can be interpreted to mean that the court is satisfied with the result in O'Dell and is implicitly sanctioning the reasonable expectation test itself as well as its meaning as “probability” of happening rather than “possibility” of happening. Oklahoma lawyers prepare their cases knowing that they have to argue “probability.”

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.