State of Confusion

State of Confusion Paper

Samantha Kubik

BUS 415

Beth Shankle Anderson

This paper will examine the lawsuit case of the State of Confusion by the plaintiff, Tanya Trucker. Tanya Trucker is an owner of a trucking company who resides and works out of the state of Denial. The suit is against the State of Confusion, a state which her company uses to pass through. The state of Confusion has enacted a new statue stating that in order for trucks to drive on the highways of Confusion, they must be equipped with a B type trailer hitch. The problem for Tanya is that the B type trailer hitches are manufactured solely in the state of Confusion and by only one manufacturer. Living and running her business out of the state of Denial, this causes a problem for Tanya and her drivers. This means that every time the truck drivers need to pass through the state of Confusion they either need to pull over and switch out the hitches they previously had to type B hitches or they simply have to go around the entire state.

Either way the company is taking a hit. They either have to spend additional money on the expenses of switching to the new hitches or they have to waste time and probably additional money on planning around the state of Confusion. If this were a national thing Tanya would most likely have no issues with switching the trailer hitches to B type hitches. However the federal government has shown absolutely no concern in this situation. Should Tanya really be forced to switch trailer hitches to drive through one state or should there be some exceptions made to the law.

Because the law is from the state of Confusion and Tanya’s trucking company is located in the State of Denial there is a question of who should have jurisdiction over the case. The answer is that jurisdiction will be granted to the federal court. If the plaintiff and the defendant have different places in which they resides the federal court takes over so the case is fair and indiscriminate on...