Law and Cases

CHAPTER 3: COURT PROCEDURES

Special Case Analysis Question:

Read and then brief the case below, making sure that your brief answers the following questions.

(a) Issue: On what preliminary step to litigation does the issue in this case focus?

(b) Rule of Law: What are the chief requirements for fulfilling the pretrial procedure at the center of the dispute in this case?

(c) Applying the Rule of Law: In applying the rule of law in this case, what did the court infer, and what did that inference imply for the defendant?

(d) Conclusion: Did the court conclude that the plaintiff met all of the requirements for a favorable judgment in this case? If not, why not?

Case Excerpt:

Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, 2007.

52 Cal.Rptr.3d 862, 146 Cal.App.4th 488.

AARON, J. [Judge]

* * * *

[Alan] Cruz’s parents purchased a pressure cooker from a vendor at the San Diego County Fair [in California] in the summer of 2001. On September 10, 2001, Cruz, who was 16 years old at the time, suffered burns on the left side of his torso and thigh when he attempted to take the lid off of the pressure cooker. Fagor [America, Inc.] is the American distributor of the pressure cooker.

On the date of the incident involving the pressure cooker, Cruz’s parents sent an e-mail to Fagor to alert the company about what had occurred.* * *

On June 2, 2003, [Fagor] notified Cruz that it was denying liability.* * *

* * * *

Cruz filed a complaint [in a California state court] against Fagor on December 1,2004,alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. On December 14,2004,Cruz,through his attorney, mailed the summons and complaint to Fagor by certified mail, return receipt requested. The envelope was addressed to “Patricio Barriga, Chairman of the Board, FAGOR AMERICA, INC., A Delaware Corporation, 1099 Wall Street, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-3678.”

The return receipt indicates...