4 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology



_______________________________________________________________

4 Cases for Skills Building Assignment

Instructor’s Note:

These cases have been altered from the ones in the 12th edition. The basic description and characters are the same. Cases are altered because students may become familiar with versions used over a number of semesters.

Case #1: Police Abuse

On July 21 at 5:30 a.m., John T. Johnson was arrested by two Chicago police officers while walking his Siberian Husky named Nanook through Garfield Park. He was not wearing a hat but was wearing a hooded Chicago Bears sweatshirt and stripped workout pants. The officers placed him in their patrol car, drove around the area for 15 minutes, and finally allowed him to call Lt. Tyler Boston at the Garfield Police Station. He was released upon Lt. Boston’s insistence.

A hearing has been held into the incident, and officers April Summers and Mark Winters, the first a rookie and the second with two years of experience, have been suspended without pay, Summers for 15 days and Winters for 30 days. Johnson considers this a travesty and is pressing criminal charges. He is charging Winters with assault and battery, false imprisonment, and violation of civil rights laws and Summers with being an accessory before the fact. John T. Johnson, a Haiti-American is five is feet 6 inches tall, weighs 145 pounds, and is fifty-eight years old. He said he was “roughed up,” threatened with bodily harm, and insulted because of his ethnic heritage while Summers did nothing to stop this police brutality.

John T. Johnson said he was walking his dog through Garfield Park near his home, admiring the beautiful trees and flowers and greeting other dogs and their owners he knew well. He walks early in the morning to avoid the early rush hour traffic. A Chicago patrol car passed him going in the opposite direction, made a quick U-turn, and pulled up close behind him with its lights flashing and siren wailing. He went onto the sidewalk and continued to walk until, what he thought was an emergency vehicle, could pass him. Instead, Officer Winters got cautiously out of the patrol car, walked slowly toward him, and yelled, “Stop where you are and get on the ground with your hands behind your head!” As he lowered himself to the ground while trying to hold onto his dog, Winters grabbed him by the shoulders and pushed his face into the dirt. Officer Summers approached from the other side with her gun aimed at his head. Nanook began to growl, so Summers took the leash and tied Nanook to a tree. When Johnson told Winters to stop pushing his head into the dirt, Winters took out his club and threatened to hit him. When he asked why he was being roughed up, Winters pinned him down by holding the club to his neck. Summers did nothing to stop this incident.

When Johnson identified himself as an Appeals Court judge, Winters said it made no difference to him and that “all illegals are the same to me.” Johnson asked to be taken to a superior officer, but instead Winters handcuffed him and dragged him to the patrol car; Summers opened a rear door; and Winters threw him into the back seat. When he said he needed to take his dog home, Winters said “the pound will pick up your mutt.” Summers drove the patrol car around the area for some fifteen minutes before finally asking Winters to allow her to make a call to Lt. Tyler Boston. Lt. Boston said, “For God’s sake, let him go!” Boston came to the car a few minutes later and took Johnson to the park to pick up his dog and then to his home.

Several days later when Capt. Tolliver asked if Johnson would accept public apologies and a suspension of the officers, Johnson told Tolliver that Winters was too dangerous and prejudiced to be on the Chicago police force and Summers lacked the will power to protect citizens from fellow officers out of control.

Officer Mark Winters said Johnson’s charges were greatly exaggerated. He and Officer Summers had been investigating a complaint that a male jogger had been making lewd advances to female joggers in the park. Johnson resembled the man they were seeking in several important features. When they stopped him, he tried to resist by continuing to walk and was surly and disrespectful. He offered no identification and threatened them with the comment, “You don’t know who you’re dealing with. I’ll have your badges!” As soon as he asked to talk to Lt. Boston, Officer Summers contacted Lt. Boston by cellular phone.

Officer April Summers said she had played only a minor role in the incident since she was the junior officer on the scene. She had not interfered because she felt they “had their man” and another “deviate would be off the Chicago streets.” He looked like the description they had received and resisted arrest. Later Summers said that Winters “might have been a bit rough,” but he was the senior office and had been on the streets much longer than her. They were always cautious when apprehending suspects during the early morning hours while it was still dark.

Capt. Gabriel Tolliver said the man the officers were looking for was a dark complexioned, white male, 25-30 years old, 6” to 6’ 2” tall, and 185-200 pounds. The suspect reportedly wore blue jeans, a red and white jacket, and a New York Yankee baseball cap. Johnson is 55 years old, Haitian-American, 5’ 6” tall, and around 145 pounds.

Lt. Tyler Boston, commander of the Garfield Station, said several officers had been on the lookout for a man who had been making unwanted advances toward female joggers in the Garfield Park area. There was no indication that he was a jogger or appeared to be one. He had known Johnson for several years and had great respect for him as a judge and civic leader. Officers Winters and Summers were sincerely sorry for this mistake and had apologized to Johnson in writing.

Allison Ice, a reporter for the Tribune, said several Hispanic-American, Haitian-American, and Asian-American residents of the Garfield Park area had complained to the Chicago Police commissioner about rude and sometimes physical treatment by police officers, particularly young ones. Judge Johnson, active in Concerned Minorities of Cook County, had been collecting statements from residents about incidents with Chicago police. Allison Ice wondered if this arrest had been a mistake or retaliation for Johnson’s involvement.

Case #2: A Case of Negligence

On the evening of November 24, a year ago, Jane and Walter Manly arrived at the Willard and Virginia Packman home for a Thanksgiving dinner. The Manlys and Packmans were neighbors and long-time friends. After an hour or some of conversation, and a pitcher or more of beer, Walter joined Willard in the family room to watch a college football game. Jane joined Virginia on the deck. Jane volunteered to deep fry the turkey while Virginia prepared several dishes in the kitchen. The deep fryer flamed up when oil spilled onto the flame igniting the sleeve of Jane’s silk blouse. Virginia rushed outside when she heard Jane yell in pain and managed to smother the flames with a kitchen towel. The burns appeared to be severe. In spite of Virginia’s pleas to let her take her to the emergency room, Jane decided to walk home to treat herself.

As Jane walked out the front door, she became dizzy, tripped over a planter, and tumbled down a stone stairway. Walter Manly called 911, and a police officer and a team of EMTs arrived within a minutes. They placed Jane in the ambulance, and Virginia insisted on riding in the back with Jane. After treatment for second- and third degree burns and a dislocated arm, Jane, Walter, Virginia, and Willard returned home to hamburgers and salad because the trukey had burned to a crisp.

As the year has passed, relations between the Manlys and Packmans have deteriorated and grown bitter. Jane has some ugly scars on her arms from the burns. The Manlys have filed a $450,000 negligence suit against the Packmans, and the Packmans have filed a countersuit charging contributory negligence. An initial hearing has been held, but no decision has been made.

Under state law, hosts are responsible for protecting their guests from accidents caused by traps, alcoholic drinking, and dangerous defects known by the hosts and unlikely to be detected by guests. Both parties, however, are expected to exercise reasonable caution and moderation. If a guest is injured by reason of the host’s negligence, the guest has valid grounds for a lawsuit. If a guest is guilty of contributory negligence, there are no grounds for a suit.

Jane Manly argues that she has valid grounds for claiming $450,000 in damages from the Packmans because they failed to tell her about the fire dangers of deep fryers or to place the planter away from the steps. The resulting ugly scars prevent her from wearing short sleeved blouses and bathing suits. Because of the Packman’s negligence, she has been unable to teach aerobics or to model clothing, both of which had given her “considerable income.”

Virginia Packman counters that Jane should not have added more cooking oil to the fryer with the burner turned on and that she had been to their home many times and was well aware of the planters. The fall resulted not from negligence but Jane’s dizziness from downing too many glasses of beer and refusing to go to the emergency room immediately. In addition, she and Willard had volunteered to pay for Jane’s medical expenses, occupational therapy, and plastic surgery if needed.

Walter Manly argues that the Packmans were negligent on two counts. First, they allowed Jane, their guest, to drink too much beer even though they knew she had a drinking problem. And second, they had had an obligation to teach Jane how to use the deep fryer properly and to warn her of the fire danger. They had too many planters in their walkways and stairways that obstructed easy access to both.

Willard Packman counters that Jane would get quite angry and make ugly scenes if anyone attempted to “close the bar” on her or to “tell her how to cook.” They wanted to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner and visit. He also noted that Virginia was a skilled medical practitioner and had volunteered to treat Jane’s burns immediately or to take her to the emergency room before her injuries became more acute. Jane refused treatment and stubbornly insisted on going home and treating herself. Her stubbornness, negligence, and voluntary drinking were the causes of her injuries.

Faith Ford, the ambulance driver who took Jane to the hospital, testified that, during the fifteen minute drive, she heard Jane tell Virginia that it was not her fault, that she had “a bit too much to drink.” Virginia insisted that it was her fault that the deep fryer flamed up and the planter that was close to the stairs.

Dick Tracy, the police officer who answered the 911 call, said the deep fryer was on high with cooking oil too close to the rim of the fryer, and the planter was 18 inches to the right of the stairs. Walter Manly met him at the street and said that his wife “had done it again.” He remembered the Manlys from a DUI charge against Jane Manly the previous spring. Virginia had covered Jane with a blanket and had made a sling for her arm.

Margaret Paine, the Manly family physician, said part of the slow healing and the scars was Jane’s insistence on doing aerobics too soon and failure to follow prescribed treatments for her burns. She had warned Jane several times to avoid strenuous workouts for at least three months.

Bill Dodge, an EMT who responded with Faith Ford to the 911 call, said blood tests on Jane Manly showed a blood alcohol level of .15, above the legal limit of .08.

Case #3: Assault and Battery

Arthur and Lucille Nichols live at 2234 Albany Street with their four children, Nancy, Arthur, Jr., Matthew, and Chelsea. Arthur is 40 years old, five feet five inches tall, and weighs 135 pounds. He manages Quickprint, a copy shop, but has a growing reputation as an amateur organic gardener. He and his wife are developing several types of lettuce and spinach and plan to get into organic gardening full time by developing 40 acres outside of Parkstown. Four new varieties of lettuce and spinach were just beginning to mature, and a local supermarket had agreed to purchase them.

William and Marcia Parry live at 2236 Albany Street with their children, Rocky and Sandy. William is thirty-six years old, six feet five inches tall, and weighs over 250 pounds. The Parrys raise purebred rabbits on their property and usually let them run loose in the yard enclosed by an aging wooden fence.

Arthur Nichols said he arrived home at about 6:00 p.m. from Quickprint to discover that his garden had been destroyed. The absence of all leaves from the lettuce and spinach plants proved that the Parry rabbits had gotten through a gate in the fence that was still partially open and decimated his prize organic garden. Arthur heard laughter from the Parry’s yard and, when he went to the fence, saw Rocky and Sandy playing with the rabbits and feeding them some of his produce. He said he just “lost it.” He opened the gate and started chasing Rocky and Sandy around the yard. They were going to pay for what they and the rabbits had done.

Marcia Parry said she looked out the kitchen window to see that “crazy” Arthur chasing poor Rocky and Sandy around the yard and threatening them and the rabbits with a garden hoe. Several times he swung the hoe at her children’s heads and the rabbits, but they were too agile for him. She yelled to William to come quickly because that “crazy Nichols was trying to kill our children and rabbits.”

William Parry said he ran out the back door and tackled Arthur just as he was about to strike four rabbits he had cornered near the garage. Nichols pulled free and demanded to know what he was going to do about the destroyed produce. He replied “nothing, because kids will be kids and rabbits will be rabbits.” He said he would “give him a few bucks to pay for the lettuce and spinach.” As he turned to go back to watching the news, Arthur grabbed the door to prevent William from going inside. He admitted that he slammed the door “real good” on Arthur’s fingers.

Lucille Nichols came out of her house to see what the yelling was all about and saw her husband swing at Parry with his hoe. He was holding his hand in obvious pain. When her husband missed with his hoe, William knocked him to the ground and threw the hoe onto his roof. She helped her husband home because of his injured hand and then called the police to report an assault and battery.

Officer Ward Stubble said that when he arrived at the Nichols home, Arthur said he was afraid to leave the house because that “big guerrilla” might attack him again. He assured Arthur that he would be protected and then escorted him to the emergency room for treatment of his fingers and jaw.

Carrie Mason, Arthur Nichols attorney, said her client is suing William Parry for assault and battery and lost income in the amount of $175,000. Parry’s assault on her client and negligence leaving the children and rabbits without supervision had cost the Nichols a year’s worth of produce and seeds and seriously delayed their plans to go into the organic farm business.

Smiley Con, William Parry’s attorney, said that Arthur was very fortunate that his client was so forgiving and good natured. After all, he could charge Arthur with trespassing, endangerment to children, and intent to kill with a deadly weapon. Nichols should “get a life” and not be so uptight about a few vegetables.

Case #4: Cheating in College

Professor Semantha Tilson teaches a course in advertising at Brier University. This course is required of several majors, including advertising, marketing, sales, and retail management. The course requires each student to select a product or service, conduct market research and background reading, and create an advertising campaign for the selected product or service.

She received an advertising campaign report from Giulo Giordano, an advertising major and member of the wrestling team, entitled “A Gift of Time” designed to solicit funds for a non-profit charity created to assist impoverished high school athletes across the United States. As she read through the report, it seemed very similar to one she had received a few years earlier from a member of the wrestling team.

When Professor Tilson looked through her files, she came across a number of papers on non-profit charities. One was quite similar to Giordano’s. It was completed three years earlier by a former wrestling star named Joe “the crusher” Peabody. Both reports focused (1) on aiding impoverished high school athletes, particularly in “minor” sports such as wrestling, gymnastics, tennis, and golf, (2) included seven interviews with former high school athletes helped through “A Helping Hand,” (3) relied upon cable outlets, and (4) cited nearly identical strategies for helping high school athletes. Five of seven conclusions were similar as were five public service announcements.

After confronting Giordano with the two projects, Professor Tilson asked the Student Court to determine whether Giordano was guilty of “fraud.” The University and Court define fraud as “willfully and intentionally giving or receiving improper aid in examinations, papers, and projects.” The Court consists of nine students: two freshmen, two sophomores, two juniors, two seniors, and one graduate student. The Dean of Students serves as an advisor on university policies and regulations. Several people testified at a hearing two weeks ago.

Professor Semantha Tilson said she called Giordano into her office for a conference and asked him about his advertising campaign report. At first he appeared sullen and disinclined to talk but later became more communicative, even frank. Since he was interested in sports and hoped to go into coaching after graduation, he decided it would be an interesting and relevant topic. He said he had read several articles listed on the reference list at the end of his report, talked to some coaches, and interviewed seven players in three sports, basketball, track, and wrestling. When asked if he had talked to Joe Peabody, he said he had met him during homecoming but could not remember discussing the campaign with him.

Giulo Giordano said he had spent a great deal of time on his advertising campaign project and resented the implication that he could not come up with a good idea and create an excellent advertising campaign. He agreed with everything Professor Tilson said except the description of him as being sullen and disinclined to talk. He said he was cautious at first because Tilson seemed to have her mind made up that he had cheated. Yes, he had met “the crusher” and they had discussed their academic and athletic experiences briefly. He explained the alleged similarities between the two reports as a result of their being on the same topic and issue. “After all,” he asked, “how could the two campaigns be radically different?”

Joe “the crusher” Peabody, now a sports analyst for ESPN, remembered meeting Giordano at a homecoming luncheon but could not recall if they had talked about his advertising project when he was a student at Brier. Giordano could have accessed his report from the file in the intercollegiate athletic counseling office where students received tutoring on a wide variety of courses. He understood it was on a charity to help underprivileged high school athletes.

Ruth Jones reported that she went through the computer files in the athletic counseling office and found an empty folder for Professor Tilson’s course. She did not know how many sample reports had been in the file, but her best guess would have been three or four. She admitted that papers often disappeared from the files near the end of each semester; sometimes they reappeared and sometimes not. She did not recall Giordano using the course file, and no records were kept.

Coach Kathy Dilts, as assistant women’s volleyball coach, said she often discussed monetary needs with players during visits to Brier. Yes, she often told anecdotes to help players avoid NCAA violations. She could not recall speaking personally to Giordano about ways to assist impoverished high school athletes, but she often talked to students about issues in athletics.

Rocky Shoreline volunteered to speak to the Student Court. He said he was one of the seven students Giordano had interviewed for his project. He claimed that Giordano had interviewed him in depth for over an hour about how “A Helping Hand” had enabled him to afford to play football at Smokey Ridge High School in eastern Tennessee. He said Giordano “really knew a lot about advertising and how to interview.” He revealed that he and Giordano were fraternity brothers.

The other six interviewees Giordano claimed to have interviewed were unavailable or declined to appear before the Court.

Case #5: Award for a Hero

On October 9, 1996, a news report from Elizabeth, Tennessee reported, “Four Boy Scouts were saved from drowning in Lost Creek yesterday by Rex Ingram, Scoutmaster of Troop 3344, when heavy rain had caused Lost Creek to rise to a record flood level.” Lost Creek, a small river, drains a wide area nine miles from Elizabeth. The Golden Eagle Boy Scout Camp is located on an island in a wide part of the creek. It consists of a log cabin with a ground floor for cooking and activities and a loft for sleeping and storage.

The Elizabeth meteorologist reported that on October 9, about 11 inches of rain fell between 6:00 and 9:30 p.m. Lost Creek rose a rcord16 feet in a matter of two hours and quickly overwhelmed the low-lying island and the Scout camp.

Rex Ingram was thirty years old at the time, a native of Elizabeth, a graduate of the local high school, and a former football player at the University of Tennessee. He was an industrial engineer at the Southern Textile and Carpet Works in Knoxville and loved the outdoors. He had been scoutmaster for nearly three years, taking the boys on monthly outings regardless of the weather.

George Young was fifteen years old at the time of the tragedy, the oldest boy in the Scout troop. He said there was a plank bridge across the creek where the stream was normally less than knee-deep. When it began to rain heavily on October 9, Rex took the boys into the cabin to keep dry and cook dinner. At about 6:00 p.m., one of the boys reported that the creek was over the bridge and covered most of the island. They ate dinner and prepared to spend the night in the cabin. It was already very dark when, about 7:30 p.m., water began to come into the cabin. Rex put on his poncho and went outside to see if they could make it to higher ground or across the flooded creek. The water seemed too swift and deep on all sides of the cabin. Rex told the boys not to worry because the cabin “was as strong as a fort” built to withstand any flood.

Grant King was eleven years old, the youngest boy in the troop. As water continued to rise in the cabin, some of the younger boys like him became very frightened, so Rex got them up in the loft with plenty of blankets and flashlights. Rex predicted that the water would go down soon and they could walk to safety.

Michael Farber, nearly thirteen and strong for his age, said Rex decided about 9:00 p.m., with water nearly to the top of the doorway, that they should abandon the cabin. Rex fitted lifejackets on the boys and had them swim out the door and climb on the roof. He inflated a small rubber raft and placed the two youngest boys in the raft. George and Michael fended off logs and debris with tent poles while Rex tried to row against the swirling current. Almost a half-mile down the creek the current carried them to the bank and they got out on the bank to high ground.

Herbert B. Lincoln said Michael Farber pounded on his door about 9:30 p.m., and he was startled to learn that several Boy Scouts were at the camp in such a storm. He got to the creek just in time to see Rex returning to the cabin in the rubber raft.

Sam and Marty Kyle are expert boatmen and are often called upon throughout Tennessee for search and rescue missions and to recover bodies from drowning accidents. Sam said he and his brother were called by the state police and asked to help in the rescue of Rex and the two remaining boys. They were preparing a rescue boat when they saw Rex and the remaining scouts in the rubber raft heading toward them from the cabin. About half was across, the raft tipped over and threw Rex and the two boys into the creek. The next morning they found the bodies of the scouts in a logjam more than five miles downstream.

Larry A. White, the athletic director at the local high school and an expert outdoorsman, said he had known Rex since high school. Rex was strong, rugged, fearless, and idolized by his Scouts. Unfortunately, he was not a good swimmer and often took unreasonable chances. In his opinion, Rex showed bravery but arrogance in remaining at the camp until it was too late.

Smokey Williams, county sheriff , reported that Rex’s body was never found. They assumed that it was buried under a sandbar somewhere downstream, but some locals claim to have seen Rex in Knoxville and western North Carolina.

Case #6: Dismissal of the Teacher

Marian Williams is twenty-five years old and has worked as a third grade teacher in the Oak

Park school district for three years. Since coming to Oak Park, she has earned a master’s degree, specializing in teaching children with special needs. Her master’s degree satisfied a state requirement for a lifetime teaching license. Every evaluation of her teaching performance has been outstanding. She is active in the ACLU and the Unitarian Church of Mapleton.

Following Christmas break, Marian’s principal barred her from entering the Oak Park Elementary School building, saying that her contract had been cancelled by the school board. It seems that over Christmas vacation, the school board had met in secret at the law offices of Charles Roberts, president of the board, and unanimously passed a statute requiring all teachers to reside in Boone County, site of Marian’s school. Since Marian lived on the old Miller farm three miles from Oak Park and 100 yards over the county line, she was dismissed and replaced immediately with Jackie Norway, a cousin of school board member Noah Norway.

The Oak Park Leader published an editorial applauding the new statute designed to bring the community, its schools, and its teachers close together and to strengthen the community’s commitment to “small town values.”

Marian Williams said she confronted the school board president, Charles Roberts, and explained that a large portion of the Miller farm was actually in Boone County so she met the new requirement. He told her it was too late for appeals because her position had already been filled and the board was obligated legally to honor this contract. Besides, the portion of the farm in Boone County did not include the house in which she lived, so she technically lived outside of the county. She asked why she had not been notified, and Roberts replied that they had tried to call her but she was not at home. When she reminded him that, as he was aware, she was attending a conference in Chicago on teaching children with special needs, he replied that the board’s attorney said they had the right to terminate contracts “if reasonable attempt had been made to notify an untenured teacher.” They had made such an attempt.

Hugh Notsosmart, principal of the Oak Park Elementary School, said that while Marian had been an average teacher, she did not seem dedicated to her students and the “values based” curriculum he had instituted a year ago. He said the values of all teachers had to be in “harmony in a community with traditional middle-American values espoused by the founders of our republic.”

Bernice Satterly, director and head cook of the cafeteria, stated that she believes Marion is on drugs: “I saw her take something out of her purse on more than one occasion and put it in her mouth. She always seemed to be on a high after that.” Besides “she thinks she’s better than us folks in rural America.”

Eliza Child, a member of the school board, said it was Marian’s own fault for getting fired. During the past two years, she had become increasingly critical of the school system and an overly active member of the teachers’ union, euphemistically called “The Boone County Education Association.” She saw “no need for big unions meddling in our small school system.”

Donald Cable, a representative of the State Teachers Association, said he has called a special meeting of its board to discuss legal actions against the Oak Park school board. Its actions, he claims, “are clearly in violation of state and federal fair employment practices laws.”

Case #7: Contesting a Will

William McCollum, a farmer in Smithfield, North Dakota, died from a fall from his tractor and is survived by six children, and three grandchildren. McCollum’s estate, after all debts and taxes have been paid, is valued at slightly over $2,000,000. His will provides for the division of the estate into three equal parts, one part to each of his surviving children, and one part to his three surviving grandchildren. By terms of his will, all land, property, livestock, and equipment will be sold. The children and grandchildren will receive interest on their shares for life and, when his last child dies, the principal will be divided equally among the surviving three grandchildren.

William McCollum’s six children are anxious to secure immediate control of their shares of the estate and are asking the courts to set aside the will on three grounds: their father’s “mental incapacity,” “cruelty,” and “advancing senility.” They propose that all of the estate be divided into seven parts with the grandchildren receiving one seventh. Six sevenths would go to the surviving children (Lincoln, Ada, Henry, Mary, June, and Edward) who are between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-five, with June being the youngest. The grandchildren range in age from three to eight years of age. All six of the children were estranged from their father when he died; only June continued to live on the farm.

Rev. Emerson DeWitt, a retired minister, said he had known William McCollum all of his life and found him to be grasping, miserly, profane, and irreligious but hardly senile. When he conducted the marriage of Alice McCollum to Mark Davis, William refused to attend the ceremony because he opposed the marriage. When he met William on the street the next day, he cursed him. Alice died a year ago of the N1H1 flu, and William attended the funeral but sat alone in the back pew. DeWitt tried to comfort him, but William replied, “She’s in hell now.”

Lincoln McCollum testified that his father never cared for anything but money. He had been taken from high school where he was a star center on the basketball team as soon as he turned sixteen and made to work on the farm for no wages. He had to wear his father’s made-over clothes. As soon as he turned eighteen, he left home and went to work on a neighboring farm.

Henry McCollum claimed that his father had caused his mother’s death from tetanus because he would not pay for medical care or take her to the hospital when she became critically ill. He cared more for money that for his own wife and children.

June McCollum said she continued to live on the farm although she and her father rarely spoke to one another. She said her father never gave her mother any money except for bare necessities, and she bought her clothes and food not grown on the farm by selling produce from a truck garden she and the children managed. She agreed with Henry that their father was responsible for their mother’s death a rare form of tuberculosis.

Dr. Al Martin said that when Alice’s son Jacob needed an operation for a chronic lung condition, his parents had no money or insurance. William McCollum had refused to help because he said his daughter had married a “bum” and that he had “washed his hands of them a long time ago.” He appeared to have an obsessive hatred for his children.

Tom T. Tuttle, a county judge, said William McCollum was “old school” and believed that children should earn their own way and not be pampered. His will reflected this belief, not hatred or cruelty.

Jack Hanes, a Ford dealer who had sold William a number of trucks and trailers, said William had once remarked to him, “I don’t want to leave my children a red cent because they are all lazy. I would like to leave the farm in such debt that they would have to work like dogs to make a meager living on it.”

Case #8: Lawsuit against a Restaurant

The Johannesen Restaurant is located in St. Paul and has a seating capacity of 350. It specializes in Scandinavian dishes, particularly fresh seafood. Friday evening is always a busy time for the restaurant. As a result of an incident on the evening of September 21, Jessie Gustavson is suing the restaurant for $25,000 damages on the grounds of false imprisonment and mental anguish. False imprisonment is defined as “improper, unwarranted, and unjustified detainment without cause.”

Jessie Gustavson said she and her aunt Thora Ulf entered the Johannesen Restaurant about 6:00 p.m. for dinner and had 7:30 tickets to see “The Music Man” at the Civic Theater in Minneapolis. They had reservations for 6:00 o’clock and believed they had adequate time to eat a relaxed dinner and drive a mile to the theater. Unfortunately, they had to wait twenty minutes for their table even though they had been told it would be five minutes. After taking their drink orders, their waiter disappeared for over fifteen minutes before returning with their drinks and to take their orders. They both ordered the sea bass special because they thought it would take less time, and they informed their waiter about their time constraints. Their salads came fifteen minutes later, and they told their waiter to cancel their dinners because they now had too little time to eat them. He nodded but returned fifteen minutes later with the sea bass dinners just as they were preparing to leave.

Thora Ulf said they did not touch their dinners and left for the cashier. When they got to the cashier, they told her what had happened and that they needed to leave immediately for the theater. They paid for their drinks and salads and were about to leave the restaurant when the waiter came forward with the two dinners in boxes and a bill for them. The cashier rang for the manager to decide what to do.

Fred Johnson, the manager, said Jessie and Thora must remain in the restaurant until the matter was settled. They said they had no time to wait because they had theatre tickets and were already delayed past time to get there before the start of the musical. A security guard blocked the door so they could not leave. They were allowed to leave some twenty minutes later and missed the first half of the musical.

Jill Thornsen, the cashier, agreed with most of what Jessie and Thora said but claimed the two had agreed to remain until the matter was resolved. She asked them about the sea bass dinners that had been boxed up so they could eat them later. Jessie and Thora said they did not want to take the boxed dinners to the theatre, but the manager had insisted because of the poor service they had received.

Gustav Swensen, the restaurant owner, said that when he heard the story of the poor service, he apologized deeply and volunteered to return all of their money and the boxed dinners to them. They said that would not be necessary because they had enjoyed their drinks and salads. They waved and left within five minutes and he motioned the security guard to help them with the door and to get a taxi. As far as he knew, that was the end of the incident and he had hoped that Jessie and Thora would return for a dinner “on the house.”

Anna Christophersen, Jessie’s lawyer, said the incident was a clear case of false imprisonment. Two incredibly patient and innocent people had been mistreated, embarrassed, and physically detained for a significant amount of time. They had missed half of the musical. Both felt they had been assaulted and continued to experience mental anguish. She had encouraged Jessie to sue for $50,000.

Buster Petersen, the security guard on duty at the time, said neither Jessie nor Thora appeared to be much of a security threat. He recognized Thora as a former secretary for the Minnesota Vikings and asked how she was doing. She replied that she was fine and now retired. Everyone seemed cordial, but Jessie did appear agitated in the way she answered questions.

Case #9: Murder or Self-Defense

On the morning of February 9, 1963, Lucinda Harvey called the sheriff to her home outside of Westfield, Alabama. When the sheriff got there, he found Jacob Harvey dead in the front yard near a mailbox. Lucinda Harvey was not at home, and her whereabouts could not be determined at the time of the coroner’s inquest two days later. Since there were no witnesses, the coroner issued an open verdict, meaning that the case could be reopened when more information became available. Jacob Harvey had two bullet wounds to his back, either one of which could have been fatal. One bullet was from a 45 caliber pistol and one from a 22 caliber pistol or rifle. Blood was found in the front yard, and it matched that of Jacob Harvey.

The case was reopened one month later at the insistence of several civil rights groups. Lucinda Harvey, who had returned to Westfield, was taken to the Alabama Sheet Steel Fabrication plant where her husband had worked for nine years. She identified three men as the ones who had shot her husband. These men, all co-workers with Jacob, admitted that they had gone to the Harvey home the night before the shooting but, at first, claimed they had left the home and not seen Jacob after that. They did not know he was dead until they heard reports on the public address system at the plant.

Jacob Harvey, a thirty-eight-year-old African-American Marine veteran, six feet five inches tall, 265 pounds, and very strong, was a life-long resident of Westfield. He was a skilled mechanic at Alabama Sheet Steel Fabrication with a good work record. He had been very active in the local chapter of the NAACP since returning home from the Korean War as a decorated Marine sergeant.

Lucinda Harvey testified that on the evening of February 8, she and Jacob had gone to bed around 9:30 p.m. and were awakened about an hour later by loud knocks and curses. She got out of bed and opened the front door. Three men brushed her aside and went into the bedroom. She heard loud arguing and shouting but could not tell what was being said. Jacob ordered them to leave his home and said he had a gun. The men left with one saying that this was not the end of the matter.

Early the next morning, February 9, Jacob went out to place some letters in the mailbox. A few minutes later she heard several gunshots and a car driving away at a high rate of speed. When Jacob did not come back into the house, she called the sheriff and left immediately with her three children for Montgomery where she had stayed with her sister to escape “the horrors of the situation.”

Mary Martin, a neighbor of the Harvey’s, said she had heard a car drive by, then a couple of shots, a car leaving at a high rate of speed, and then some more shots. Within a few minutes, Lucinda Harvey came to her back door and asked her to drive them to her sister’s home in Montgomery. Lucinda said there was terrible trouble at their house and she didn’t think she could drive. Mary Martin admitted that the Harvey’s had had a “stormy marriage, particularly when Harvey was drinking.”

Sheriff Tate Tyler said he found a flashlight and a 45 caliber pistol near Jacob’s body with five spent 45 caliber casings within a few feet. Identifiable fingerprints on the gun belonged to Jacob and Lucinda. Jacob was lying near the mailbox with letters scattered on the ground. The 45 caliber pistol was identified as Jacob’s combat pistol.

Tank Adams and Jock Brown admitted that they had gone to see Jacob Harvey on the night of February 8 to tell him to stop picking on Tiny Babcock and Stilts Zorolak at the plant. They didn’t want any trouble, but they wanted his bullying to stop. Jacob became abusive and said he had a mind to shoot them for trespassing, so they left immediately.

Digger Clark, a guard at the plant where Jacob worked, said he, Tank, and Jock had passed by the Harvey house on their way to work the next morning, Jacob was near the mailbox, and they heard a shot that just missed their truck. He pulled out his nine millimeter service pistol and fired once in the direction of Jacob as they sped away. None of them owned a 45 caliber pistol that they considered to be an antique.

Ronald Smith, president of the local NAACP chapter, identified the three men (Tank, Jock, and Digger) as members of the KKK. He considered Jacob Harvey to be a marked man because of his involvement in the civil rights struggle.

Case #10: A Wild Police Chase

On July 3 at 3:35 p.m., two young, white males robbed the Gold Exchange in the borough of Queens of $37,539 in cash and over $278,000 in gold coins and jewelry. They shot and killed the manager, Marty Simon, who attempted to trip an alarm, and fled in a dark blue Buick sedan. A short time later they switched to a Yellow taxi driven by Herbert Hausman and led the police on a twenty-five minute chase through Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. When the chase ended, the bandits had covered more than twelve miles in heavy traffic, seven people were dead, and six people were wounded. Patrolman Dempsey shot Hausman at the end of the chase and is now being charged with manslaughter.

Patrolman Chad Walker, said he and Patrolman Dempsey had responded to a call that a sedan carrying the robbers of the Gold Exchange was heading east on 169th Street in Manhattan. When they reached 169th, they saw motorcycle officer Winston Churchill lying critically wounded in the street. They called for an emergency vehicle and continued along 169th. Several blocks later they saw a blue Buick parked in an alley. When they checked it out, they discovered that it was the robbery vehicle because several jewelry boxes and two masks were inside.

Detective Liz Kiley said she and her partner Chester Nimitz were at the 161st Street station when Walker and Dempsey reported that the robbers had abandoned the Buick sedan and were in a yellow taxi apparently heading toward the Brooklyn Bridge. A short time later they joined the chase and quickly encountered two wounded officers in a patrol car who warned than that the bandits were firing Tec-9’s out the back and side windows. After crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, they spotted the taxi with several patrol cars in hot pursuit. They turned east, went down Dychman Street to Sherman Avenue, down Sherman Avenue to Nagel Street and then around the block again. There was constant firing from the taxi.

Detective Chester Nimitz said a FedEx truck blocked Nagel Street and the Yellow Taxi came to a stop on the sidewalk. Police cars barricaded the street on both ends and a standoff ensued with gunfire coming from inside the taxi and under the truck. After a ten-minute standoff that seemed like an hour, “Herbert Hausman exited the taxi and Dempsey shot him twice, bam, bam!” Officers rushed the taxi and found Jake “the snake” Arnham dead in the backseat from several bullet wounds. A briefcase containing $20, 169 was under the front seat.

Jack Dempsey said that he and his partner had come under intense fire from automatic weapons when the taxi stopped. When the driver jumped out of the taxi and appeared to be reaching for a gun, Dempsey got off two quick shots that dropped him in his tracks. The firing stopped. He deeply regretted the incident but felt he had not shot an innocent man.

Bill Sullivan, in charge of the shooting investigation, said no gun was found on Hausman, but that a Tec-9, three pistols, and sixty-two spent casings were on the floor of the taxi and in the street nearby. Fingerprints on the pistols belonged to a man named Sam “Slippery” Mathias, not Hausman, but Hausman’s fingerprints were found on some of the spent casings. Hausman was not identified as one of the holdup men. Mathias has not been located.

James Peters was walking down 149th Street sometime after 3:30 when a dark blue Buick sped down the middle of the street and ran a stoplight. About the middle of the next block, the Buick pulled into an alley and two men jumped out and got into a Yellow Taxi that was sitting at the curb with its engine running. The taxi then took off and disappeared in traffic.

Barbara Sutton, a driver of a Blue Taxi and an acquaintance of Hausman, testified that she had passed Hausman’s taxi going in the opposite direction on 169th Street. Hausman looked terrified, and one of the bandits was holding a gun to Hausman’s head.

Mary Lou Hausman said that her husband had been driving a Yellow taxi for several months after losing his job on Wall Street. He often sat in his taxi at busy locations with the motor running to keep cool during the summer. They were struggling to make ends meet, but her husband had never been mixed up with gangsters or done anything illegal in his life.

Instructor’s note:

Cases 3 and 6 are based partially on ones developed by Robert E. Smith, and cases 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are based loosely on ones in Harry P. Kerr, Opinion and Evidence: Cases for Argumentation and Discussion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1962).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download