WW Pharmaceuticals is making a new drug with the goal of reducing back pain. They are referring to the drug for now simply as Mu-Opioid receptor agonist 1. How are they classifying the drug?

I have taken an old pill I found in the floor. I found a second pill so I took that as well. If the second pill does not effect the speed at which by body metabolizes the drug, what kind of metabolism is that?

Sam is the father of Joey, a 9-year-old boy. Joey wanted a go-kart for his birthday. A go-kart is a miniature car powered by a small internal combustion, gasoline engine. So, Sam went to “Karts-R-Us,” a retailer of go-karts, where he purchased a Model A-1 go-kart manufactured by “Kart-Co.” Karts-R-Us had purchased the A-1 from “Whole-Co,” a wholesaler, who had purchased the A-1 from “Dist-Co,” a distributor, who had purchased the A-1 from Kart-Co. Sam brought the A-1 home and gave it to Joey on his 10th birthday. Joey started the A-1’s engine and joyfully sped away down the street. Suddenly, however, the A-1 swerved to the right and ran into a tree, injuring Joey. Later investigation revealed that a bolt had been left out of the steering column; as a result, while Joey was driving the A-1, the go-kart had become impossible to steer, which led to the crash. Sam wants you to represent his son, Joey, in a products liability case against all available defendants. Appropriately title the suit, discuss all preliminary issues necessary to a successful products liability case, and then fully analyze all cause(s) of action available to Joey.

A resident living near a factory brought a private nuisance action against the factory, alleging that emissions from the factory’s smokestack were aggravating her sinus condition and interfering with the use and enjoyment of her property. What is the most relevant factor in the factory’s defense of the lawsuit?

A professional athlete was involved in a car accident after leaving his team’s stadium following a game, and a child was killed. The child’s parents brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the athlete, which eventually was settled. A reporter for a sports gossip website accurately reported that, as part of the legal settlement, the athlete was required to seek counseling for alcoholism. The website reporter incorrectly believed that she had received this information from a press release by the athlete’s agent, but in fact it had been supplied by an unauthorized source, and no public information was released of the terms of the settlement. The athlete brought a privacy action against the website reporter based on the public disclosure of private facts, but the jury rejected his claim. What is the likely explanation?

A “wind farm” was constructed on the open land next to a gas station where a mechanic is employed. The huge windmills generated electrical power and oscillated at low speeds, resulting in very low-frequency but high-amplitude sound waves that caused extreme discomfort in a substantial minority of people. The mechanic is one of the people adversely affected by such sound waves; the vibrations from the windmills give him severe headaches and upset his immune system. If the mechanic brings an action for nuisance against the wind farm owners and loses, what is the most likely explanation?

Some teenage boys on spring break were canoeing on a river when their canoe overturned. A nearby fisherman overheard the teens’ cries for help and immediately dove into the river to rescue them. The fisherman hit his head on some hidden rocks and suffered a head injury. If the fisherman sues the teens to recover damages and prevails, what is the likely reason?

A student purchased a chemistry set from the manufacturer through its website. The set contained printed warnings instructing users to mix the chemicals only according to the formulas provided. Nevertheless, the student combined a variety of chemicals in an attempt to make an adhesive remover. The chemicals he mixed generated toxic fumes, which caused him to suffer lung damage. The student brought a strict liability action against the manufacturer. If the court decides in favor of the manufacturer, what is the likely explanation?

At an intersection, a motorist’s car struck the car of a mother who was driving her teenage son to school. The mother was killed in the collision. The mother’s estate brought a wrongful death action against the motorist on behalf of the mother’s son and daughter, her sole heirs. At trial, evidence introduced by the estate established that the motorist drove through a red light at the intersection. Evidence introduced by the motorist showed that the son was showing his mother a video on his phone just before the collision occurred. May the evidence introduced by the motorist be used against the estate?

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, with certain exceptions not relevant here, the federal government is liable only for negligence. A federally owned and operated nuclear reactor emitted substantial quantities of radioactive matter that settled on a nearby dairy farm, killing the dairy herd and contaminating the soil.  At the trial of an action brought against the federal government by the dairy farm’s owner, the trier of fact found that the nuclear plant had a sound design but that a valve made by the Acme Engineering Company had malfunctioned and allowed the radioactive matter to escape, that Acme Engineering Company is universally regarded as a quality manufacturer of components for nuclear plants, and that there was no way the federal government could have anticipated or prevented the emission of the radioactive matter. If there is no other applicable statute, for whom should the trial judge enter judgment?