Quiz name: You Be the Judge Activity (V2) Date: 05/16/2016Question with Most Correct Answers: #0 Total Questions: 20Question with Fewest Correct Answers: #0

1.

CASE: THE SELFIE MONKEY In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater traveled to the Tangkoko Reserve on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia. After following a troop of about 25 endangered crested black macaque monkeys in the jungle, Slater set up his camera on a tripod. The monkeys approached it, fascinated by their reflections in the lens. Eventually, they began playing with the camera and took actual photos of themselves. One monkey in particular took many self-portraits, some of which appeared with a July 2011 Daily Mail article about Slater’s interaction with the monkeys. One of the “selfies”

became the cover of a book of Slater’s work, Wildlife Personalities, which was published in 2014 by Blurb, Inc., in San Francisco. The book identifies Slater as the copyright owner of the selfies. In September 2015, the foundation for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California naming the monkey it calls Naruto as the plaintiff. Through his “friends” at PETA, including a primatologist named Antje Engelhardt, Naruto was suing the photographer and the publishing company Blurb for copyright

infringement: “The Monkey Selfies resulted from a series of purposeful and voluntary actions by Naruto, unaided by Slater, resulting in original works of authorship … by Naruto.” “If a human had taken a photo with Slater’s camera, that person would own the copyright to the photos,” says Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA. “Naruto should be treated no differently.” The attorney for Slater and Blurb, Andrew Dhuey, filed a motion to dismiss in November 2015. “A

monkey, an animal-rights organization, and a primatologist walk into federal court …,” he wrote. “What seems like a setup for a punch line is really happening.” Dhuey cited a 2004 case in which the courts had to decide whether whales, porpoises, and dolphins could sue the U.S. Navy under the Endangered Species Act for tissue damage they’d received from sonar devices used by the Navy. The Ninth Circuit ruled that they could not. As Dhuey wrote in his motion: “[U]nless Congress has plainly stated that animals have standing to sue,

the federal courts will not read any legislation to confer statutory standing to animals.” Does the copyright of a famous selfie lawfully belong to the monkey? You be the judge. Explain youranswer.

Mendoza, Jose

No because the its a monkey they dont have right maybe animalrights but not any other humane rights

Sayanara San

No, legally it is stated no where in any law or our constitutionthat animals have rights. A San Francisco court said that whilethe protection of law could be extended to animals, there wasno indication that it was in the Copyright Act.

Carranza Santana, Michelle

No because monkeys don't have human rights

Mendoza, Jose

Page 1 of 22

Gusano

Rodriguez, Stefany

I believe that the copyright selfie of the monkey does not belongto him. The monkey took the picture with the camera that thephotographer put there. The monkey did not own the cameratherefor it does not belong to him. Another thing is that themonkey had no idea that he was doing or a say in what happenswith the picture.

wright,elaijah

yea in my opinion the jungle should of got better tree house ofsome sort,they should get something for what they did.but thelaw doesn't say animal have rights of copy right.

miguel aguilar

yes because he toke it

Gonzalez,Stephanie

no because a monkey can't even take a selfie and if you citedthe picture witch in the article it cited then it's fine, but at thesame time a monkey has rights

Smiley,D'ahjanique

I don't think it's that serious because its a animal the animaldon't care about the picture. The person who owned thecamera does. The person who owns the camera is making a bigdeal out of it, because he wants money.

Trejo, Jose

No, the owner of the monkey should have the copyright of themonkey.

Maria Elias

I don't think the actual monkey took this picture even thoughmonkeys are really smart they think like a human

Garibay, Angel

No the image of the monkey does not belong to the monkey,Naruto, because the monkey does not have any legal rights tothe picture. Legislation in our laws does not enact rights toanimals, so since they do not have rights they can not have legalownership to property or copyrights, such as copyright claimson photographs. In accordance to that the stated EndangeredSpecies Act did not give rights to the whales to sue

the U.S. Navy, that being the closest precedent related to thiscase.

Vasquez, Catalina

I believe that the copy right of a famous selfie does not belongto the animal. I, myself, am an animal lover but the fact thatthey don't want to give any credit to Slater is ridiculous! It washis camera! Yeah he might not have taken the picture but theanimal doesn't know any better. Overall, I think this case goesfar beyond proportion. People tend to find a way argue on anyreason

Binder Aaliyah

Page 2 of 22

No, Monkeys do not have the same rights as humans. I feel asthough PETA is just trying to get compensation. A monkey doesnot have a mind of its own to say "I want to sue this guy forcopyright infringement" It just does not make sense and is notpossible. Therefore the selfie does not lawfully belong to amonkey.

Thornton, Angelica

No,because the monkey cannot fully comprehend what thevalue of the picture is. The monkey probably could not care lesswhat his picture was used for.

2.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE SELFIE MONKEY In December 2015, PETA argued that the case presents an issue of “first impression,” meaning that a question about the interpretation of a law was being asked for the first time: “Does the Copyright Act permit Plaintiff’s ownership of the works or give him standing to assert claims under that statute?”

But in January, U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled in favor of the defense to dismiss the case: “While Congress and the president can extend protection of law to animals, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.” In other words, Naruto can’t own the copyright to the photos he took. “We believe Congress has been clear in the Copyright Act,” says Kerr. “The Act speaks in broad terms … to allow courts to fill in case-specific decisions like this one.” PETA has the option to appeal.

Agree? Disagree? Explain your answer.

Mendoza, JoseI disagree they should be able to because they are monkeys they shouldnt have a right to own thepicter

Sayanara SanI agree with the District judge, an animal shouldn't own the copyright to the photos he took. Narutocant own the copyright to the photos he took.

Carranza Santana, MichelleAgree because they have a point on how he can't take copyright I mean he is just an animal.

Mendoza, JoseGusano

Rodriguez, StefanyI agree because the monkey did not know he was doing because he's a monkey. The picture shouldbe used in any way that the photographer should want to use it.

wright,elaijahagree

miguel aguilari agree because he/she has the pictures

Gonzalez,Stephaniei disagree because like i said an animal has right too but at the same time we do have to protect theanimals, if an animal is getting picture taken then maybe they should allow it. but only if its for agood cause if it's not then they shouldn't take a picture of the monkey

Garibay, Angel

Page 3 of 22

I agree with the decision made by the court for legal reasons. The animal Naruto has no legal rightshave copyright ownership despite having taken the photo willingly and intentionally. The legislationthat has jurisdiction allowed the courts to take their decision almost independently and they found itnot permissible to extend rights to the animals because it was not made so in the Copyright Act.

Vasquez, CatalinaI agree with the District judge, an animal shouldn't own the copyright to the photos he took. Why?What any good will it make? The poor animal does not know any better.

Binder Aaliyahi agree with this outcome. I just do not find it possible for a monkey to have the right to own a selfie.Also, the selfie was taken on the defendants device, so he owns it.

Thornton, AngelicaI agree with the verdict of this case.

3.

CASE: THE FORGOTTEN CRIMINAL Cornealious Michael Anderson III was living a good, responsible life. The construction company he had started was doing well. His marriage was strong. His four young children were comfortable, living in a house he’d built himself in a quiet area of St. Louis. Then, early on July 25, 2013, the 36-year-old heard pounding on his front door. When he opened it, he found himself face-to-face with a team of U.S. marshals. They took him to jail.

He knew exactly why. Almost 14 years earlier, Anderson and his stepbrother had robbed a Burger King employee at gunpoint as the man made a late-night deposit at a St. Louis bank. On May 19, 2000, Anderson was sentenced to 13 years in prison for armed robbery. He filed an appeal—he claimed that he didn’t have a gun and didn’t know his stepbrother had planned a robbery—and was released on bond.

The appeals court affirmed his conviction, and, in May 2002, after a subsequent appeal to the higher court, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed it as well. A warrant for Anderson’s arrest would be issued immediately. Except it wasn’t. As time passed, and the police didn’t show up, Anderson went on with his life. He had a daughter in

2002 and a son in 2006, got divorced in 2007, remarried that same year, and became a stepfather. He incorporated his company in 2009 and had another daughter in 2011. He filed taxes, owned real estate and cars, and kept his driver’s license current, all of which required him to file paperwork with various government agencies within the court’s jurisdiction. He never used a false name or address. Only when officials at the Missouri Department of Corrections began to process his release from

Southeast Correctional Center did they realize that, due to a “clerical error,” he’d never been incarcerated in the first place. The Missouri Supreme Court finally issued the warrant. “He was a ghost in the system,” says his attorney, Patrick Michael Megaro. On December 30, 2013, Megaro filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Mississippi County for Anderson to appear before a judge, arguing that he was being jailed illegally.

The Missouri attorney general, Chris Koster, claimed that “Anderson took advantage of the situationin the apparent hope that no one would bring [it] to the court’s attention.” Should Cornealious Anderson be required to serve his prison sentence? You be the judge. Explainyour answer.

Mendoza, Jose

Page 4 of 22

GusanoWorm in spanish ... guey

Sayanara SanAs long as the statue of limitation wasn't surpassed then he should go to jail, but it it was then no heshould not. I don't believe that Anderson should be required to serve his prison sentence because itis not his fault that there was never a warrant for Anderson's arrest. At the time police never showedup so why would that be his fault? He figured that he might as well start a family & i dont blame him.he should not be convicted. After 11 years, its just not right

Carranza Santana, MichelleI don't know honestly like i think he should and shouldn't at the same time because then again, thatwasn't his fault

Mendoza, JoseGusano

Rodriguez, StefanyNo, Corneallous Anderson should not be required to serve his prison sentence. He shouldn't beforced to because the warrant for arrest never came. It was not his job to turn himself in the policeare suppose to do that and get him but if they never did then there was nothing left for him to dobut rather than just wait for them. It took them a long time to find out that he was never rearrestedagain even though he had a company, drivers license, filed taxes, and many other things.

Gonzalez,Stephaniei believe that Anderson shouldn't go to jail because it happened 13 years ago. it happened on may19,2000 something that happened along time ago he shouldn't go to jail. He can be on prole for ayear but for him to go to jail. No it happen a long time ago he was in the ghost system.

Garibay, AngelNo Cornealious Anderson should not be brought back to jail. By his own part he did nothing to avoidthe jailing and did not attempt to hide or cover up his criminal past with the real estate purchasesand incorporating his company. He also lived a decent and legal life that I believe should be cause forreward with not being jailed.

Vasquez, CatalinaI don't believe that Anderson should be required to serve his prison sentence because it is not hisfault that there was never a warrant for Anderson's arrest. At the time police never showed up sowhy would that be his fault? He figured that he might as well start a family & I don't blame him formoving on with his life for an error he didn't even cause.

Binder AaliyahI do not believe Anderson should be required to serve time in prison. After a certain amount of timeand the police did not show up with an arrest warrant, he should not be convicted. After 11 years, itsjust not right to arrest him after it was their mistake that let him go freely. If anything the prisonshould be held liable for being so careless and unorganized.

Thornton, AngelicaYes, he should be required to serve time, because he still committed the crime. It is the states faultfor not catching him sooner. He did not use any fake names or addresses, but he still should becharged for the crimes.

4.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE FORGOTTEN CRIMINAL In February 2014, Chicago Public Media’s This American Life produced a segment on the case that helped rally the public to support Anderson’s petition for release. Unexpectedly, Koster, the attorney general, suggested that Megaro file an action against the director of the Department of Corrections, which would force the court to consider if Anderson deserved credit for “time served.” Koster explained that the court of appeals had said that “when the department erroneously

Page 5 of 22

releases an inmate, without any contributing fault by the inmate, the sentence continues to run while he is at liberty.” Megaro immediately refiled the case. At a hearing on May 5, 2014, after serving ten months in prison, Anderson was freed. “He is a good, decent man who lived a good, decent life for those 13 years,” says Megaro.

Agree? Disagree? Explain your answer.

Mendoza, JoseGusano

Sayanara SanI agree with the decision, under the technicality stated he would be serving his sentence when thepolice didn't arrest him., he was living a good life without any trouble or getting into robbery.Therefore, it's not fair when the Department of Corrections wants to make an arrest too late. It wastheir responsibility

Carranza Santana, MichelleAgree because he changed his ways

Mendoza, JoseGusano

Rodriguez, StefanyI agree with the sentence. Even though he did not serve the full sentence because of the warrantnever being issued he should at least serve some of it. If he would've continued with his life as acriminal then he should serve it all but since he didn't the time he spent in seems reasonable.

Gonzalez,Stephaniei agree to what they said, but giving him 10 months that's not right at least put him on prole or makehim do community service

Garibay, AngelI agree with the decision made, the slip up with the law should not go against him. He did nothing toevade the law and even made interactions that collided him with the legal systems jurisdiction. Aswell as the releasing of an inmate accidentally, and the time after being accumulated towards hissentence can be set under this situation for Mr. Anderson. Then the common idea that him living adecent and lawful life proves he learned from his mistake and does not need jail time helps.

Vasquez, CatalinaThey did the right thing on letting him go after ten months being a prison. For those whole 13 yearshe had been living, he was living a good life without any trouble or getting into robbery. Therefore,it's not fair when the Department of Corrections wants to make an arrest when it is already too late.It was theirresponsibility

Binder AaliyahI agree with this outcome. Rearresting him after all those years is simply not right. In the meantime,Anderson was not doing anything wrong so he had a right to be a free man.

5.

CASE: GRANDMOTHER'S RIGHTS All Cindy Flynn wanted was to spend time with her grandson. But the baby’s mother, Alice Henkel, saw things differently. The focus of their battle was Alice’s young son, Elias, born in May 2003. Alice wasn’t married to Elias’s father, Cindy’s son Cory, who was serving time in an Illinois state prison for the second time

Page 6 of 22

on a drug-related charge. Alice and her newborn had moved into her mother’s home. Before her grandson’s birth, Cindy had sent items for the baby to Alice and tried to contact her, but Alice never responded. When Cindy heard about Elias’s birth, she sent Alice a card. A month went by before Cindy got a call from Alice’s mom, inviting her over to see the baby. After that, Cindy and her husband, Mike, began visiting Elias once a week.

Alice wasn’t happy about the arrangement. She claimed to find Cindy very intimidating and said she ignored her wishes. It bothered Alice, for instance, that Cindy once referred to herself as Nana, a name she used with her goddaughter. Alice requested that she be called Grandma Cindy, and she felt disrespected when her wishes were ignored. In June, Cindy and Mike joined the Henkel family at the baby’s Catholic baptism. But the situation deteriorated that summer, when Cory, who had been released from prison, filed a petition in

family court for visiting privileges with his son. Alice felt Cory wasn’t the kind of person Elias could respect when he got older and wanted him out of the baby’s life entirely. Upset by Cory’s court filing, she decided to call Cindy and tell her she couldn’t visit Elias anymore. When the child was barely seven months old, Alice got a court order requiring supervision anytime Cory saw his son. Cindy asked the court if she could be the supervisor for the visits, but the court refused. After that, Cindy could see Elias only when Cory was present.

Initially, visits were at Sinnissippi, a nearby behavioral health-care facility. A staff person had to be present in the four-by-four-foot room, the space allocated for the visits. Cory resented having to see his son there, and when the venue was switched to Alice’s mother’s house, Cindy stopped accompanying him. She didn’t want to deal with the growing tension between her and Alice. It wasn’t until January 2006, when Elias was two and a half, that Cindy got permission for four visits

with her grandson over a two-month period. Cindy then asked to have an hour each month with Elias but she was refused. Finally, the two women found themselves before a judge in the county circuit court. Cindy argued that she had a right to see her grandson and that Elias would benefit from the visits. “I just want to be part of Elias’s life,” Cindy told the circuit court. “He deserves it.”

Alice disagreed. She said she didn’t see why it was important for Cindy to be involved in Elias’s life. She pointed out that Cindy had chosen not to attend all the allowed supervised visits with her son. Alice also had a problem with Cindy’s nondenominational Christian beliefs, ever since Cindy, in her words, “changed her life and started serving the Lord.” Alice added that Cindy tried to “take over” during visits and that Cindy had undermined her as a

parent by questioning her decision to have tubes placed in Elias’s ears because of chronic earinfections. Finally, Alice said she didn’t see how keeping Cindy from seeing Elias would be harmful to the child. Should Cindy have the right to see her grandson? You be the judge. Explain your answer below.

Sayanara SanThey are all family & even if Elias does not get along with her, she should grow as the woman she &stop acting like a child. the grandmother has no parental rights and I am guessing that no precedentallows her to argue for it validly. I don't see any harm of her seeing her grandson she doesn't dodrugs or is an unstable person.

Mendoza, JoseGusano

Rodriguez, Stefany

Page 7 of 22

Yes, Cindy should be able to see her grandson. First of all Cindy is the babies grandmother whywouldn't she be able to see the baby just because the mom is being a stingy. I could understand whyshe wouldn't want her to see him if she was a bad person but she is just being a protectivegrandmother. Alice needs to lighten up about the situation and she should be grateful that she hasthe help.

Gonzalez,Stephanieyes she has the right to see her grandson because in court a grandmother can fight for grandparentsright. Alice doesn't like how the grandmother has christian beliefs but that doesn't matter. justbecause the grandmother doesn't like how Alice takes care of her son right it doesn't mean anythingthe grandma has the right to have an opinion

Garibay, AngelNo Cindy should not have the right to see her grandson when the mother does not want to givethem visitation rights. The legal parents should have sole right what happens with the child and sinceAlice is that person she should have the final say of what happens to her child. In addition, theundermining of her parenting is a negative influence on the child that gives additional cause to denythe visitations.

Vasquez, CatalinaI think that Cindy should have the right to see her grandson! Why not?! They are all family & even ifAlice does not get along with her, she should grow as the woman she is & stop acting like a child. Thereasons she used to explain why Cindy couldn't see her son was dumb and childish.

Binder AaliyahYes, Cindy should have a right to see her grandson. If Cindy is not a trouble to the baby and she doesnot have a veryviolent past, I dont see why it is wrong. After all her grandson does have her genes, she is related tothe baby. Alice just wants to be like that since she is not with Cory anymore. That is how mostseparated couples are with their children.

6.

REAL CASE VERDICT: GRANDMOTHER'S RIGHTS The Verdict: Grandparent visitation laws vary from state to state. Under Illinois law, a grandparent who wants to see her grandchild regularly must show that a parent’s actions and decisions to deny visits are harmful to the child’s mental, physical or emotional health.

The circuit court held that Cindy’s voluntary visits with Elias didn’t create any problems and that Alice had tried to let a “natural relationship develop.” It was only after Cory filed his petition for visitation rights with the family court that Alice stopped Cindy from visiting her grandson. According to the circuit court, this showed that Alice’s denial of visitation was “merely retaliatory and punitive and patently unreasonable.”

The court also found that all other grounds for denying visitation rights to Cindy were unreasonable. Alice said she found Cindy “very intimidating” and didn’t like to be around her. Alice and her mother testified that Cindy didn’t show respect for Alice as a parent, yet they had few specific examples that warranted Alice’s decision to keep Cindy away from her grandson. In addition, Cindy convinced the court that Alice’s refusal to let her visit Elias was harmful to the child. The injury was “not something that you can put in the sense of a direct emotional harm,” the

court said, but Elias would be hurt by never knowing a grandparent who loved him. The court ruled that as long as Elias’s relationship with Cindy does not undermine his relationship with his mother, Cindy has a right to see her grandson. Alice appealed the ruling, but the higher court confirmed the decision. Cindy now visits with Elias once a month for three hours at a time, unsupervised.

Page 8 of 22

Alice is appealing the decision to the state supreme court. Was justice served? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanAlice was making it into a huge deal for nothing honestly. It all could have ignored but she decided totake it to court for no reason.parents should have complete control in something like this and theparents plea of being undermined was reasonable.I really dont understand if justice was served ornot.

Mendoza, JoseI agree that cindy should be able to see her grandson and the state shouldnt try to appeal this

Rodriguez, StefanyYes justice was served. Cindy being able to see her grandson will help him know who hisgrandparent is and that they love him. All that Cindy wanted to do was to see her grandson and havea relationship but his mother was keeping him away from her. Alice got what she deserved from notletting her son know that he was grandparents who love him.

Gonzalez,Stephanieyes justice was served the grandmother has rights to see her grandson as long as the grandmotherdoesn't violate any of the rights then she is fine and as long as she doesn't say anything bad aboutthe mother then she is okay with see her grandson

Garibay, AngelNo justice was not served, Alice's rights were violated and unreasonable claims were approved.Again, the sole responsibility of the child lies with the legal parents. Also I believe that thegrandmother was undermining her parenting and her side of the family opens up a window of badperspectives and attitudes that the mother can reasonably want to deny.

Vasquez, CatalinaI think justice was served. Alice was making it into a huge deal for nothing honestly. It all could haveignored but she decided to take it to court for no reason. She just needs to get over it

Binder AaliyahI believe that justice was served. Cindy DID have a right to visit her grandson without beingsupervised. Cindy is not a threat to that child, just a grandmother wanting to see her grandchild.There is no harm in that what so ever

7.

CASE: THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OCEAN In 2001, Eugene and Jenny Vanderpol noticed that the 20 eucalyptus trees on their neighbors’ Carlsbad, California, property had grown tall enough to block their view of the Pacific Ocean. They offered to pay to have the trees trimmed, and their neighbors, Fred and Indra Starr, agreed to have the trees cut back to 14 feet tall.

A year later, the Vanderpols again paid for a trimming. However, in 2004, on the day the trees were to be trimmed a third time, Indra Starr decided she wanted only a few feet cut off select trees. The Vanderpols were upset, but in the end, the trees were not trimmed at all. Sometime later—the Vanderpols contend it was a month, the Starrs say three years—the Starrs planted additional trees: up to 20 conifer pines and some 65 Italian cypresses.

By 2007, according to the Vanderpols, the trees had grown to 40 to 50 feet tall. The Vanderpols’ attorney notified the Starrs that their trees were again “obstructing the Vanderpols’ view and advised the Starrs to trim their trees.” The Starrs declined. In 2009, the Vanderpols sued the Starrs, alleging they violated California’s “spite fence law,” which stated that any fence or fence-like structure “maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property” is prohibited.

Page 9 of 22

The Vanderpols claimed that the Starrs “planted and/or installed numerous trees, shrubs and/or similar plants … near the common property line at such a height and density” so as to block the ocean view and devalue their home by $57,000. The Starrs maintained that the trees were allowed to grow for privacy, not to irritate their neighbors. “The Vanderpols have a big deck and can look down onto the Starrs’ property,” says the

Starrs’ attorney, Joseph Dicks. “[My clients] lacked any privacy without a hedgerow there.” Should the Starrs have had to trim their trees? You be the judge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanThe Starrs should had their trees trimmed but if not, then no. Although the trees are blocking theneighbors house, it is not trespassing any owners property therefore they cant do anything about itunless they try to talk to Starr & see if they can find a solution. Yes, it seems they were planted andnot trimmed in spite and loss of value of a home is a realmonetary set back.

Mendoza, Joseyes because it is growing onto their property

Rodriguez, StefanyYes the Starrs should trim the trees. The trees block the view of the ocean and should at least trimthem when they get to tall. If they do not want to do that then they should at least plant the treessomewhere where they don't cover the view. Not only that but then they plated more trees whichblocks the ocean view even more. The Starrs should've realized that they should've planted themsome where else.

Garibay, AngelThe Starrs should have had to trim their trees out of neighborhood courtesy. The trees legitimatelyblocked the view of the Vanderpols and both devalued the property and had went against thewished and agreements previously set by both neighbors. It seems that the additional trees plantedwere done so after the 2004 argument and under the Spite Fence Law allowing this to be a violationbecause it was done out of spite.

Vasquez, CatalinaThis is really debatable. If the trees are trespassing into another owners house in any way then yes,the Starrs should had their trees trimmed but if not, then no. Although the trees are blocking theneighbors house, it is not trespassing any owners property therefore they cant do anything about itunless they try to talk to Starr & see if they can find a solution.

Binder AaliyahYes i believe that the trees should have been trimmed. The Starrs were obstructing the view that theVanderpols paid money to have. I think that even the Vanderpols paying to get the trees trimmed inthe first place were wrong since it is not their trees. The starrs should be respectable neighbors andthey both should have came to an understanding with the trees.

8.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OCEAN The jury ruled in favor of the Vanderpols, though the judge refused to award them $57,000 in damages, since he also ordered the Starrs to cut back the trees to under 16 feet. As a result, he said, the Vanderpols’ property would no longer be devalued. The Starrs appealed, claiming that the Vanderpols didn’t prove that the trees injured “either [their]

Page 10 of 22

comfort or the enjoyment of [their] estate,” as is outlined as a condition in the spite fence law. Both parties agreed to waive a jury for the second trial in 2011, and this time, the judge ruled in favor of the Starrs: “The Court is not persuaded that maintenance of the trees … is done for the dominant purpose of annoying or vexing Plaintiffs.” “The [spite fence] law doesn’t say that the trees can’t vex and annoy the neighbors,” says Dicks, the Starrs’ attorney. “It says that it can’t be their dominant purpose.”

In July 2012, the Vanderpols filed another appeal, claiming that the trial court considered only the “current condition” of the trees when examining dominant purpose and arguing that the trees were “capable of eventually blocking the Vanderpols’ view.” But the court denied the motion for a new trial: “We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the [Starrs’] dominant purpose … was not to annoy or vex the Vanderpols.”

Agree? Disagree? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanI disagree, I believe that not only did they ruin their view that they paid for but if they try to leave andsell the house, it devalues their home. It did seem as if it was done entirely to spite their neighborsand they suffered real damages because of the trees.

Mendoza, Josei slighty agree yes

Rodriguez, StefanyThey basically went back to where they started. I guess I can agree to what the final decision thecourt had to say. Both the Starrs and the Vanderpols were being childish about the situation.

Garibay, AngelI disagree with the verdict given, the Vanderpols should have been awarded the trimming of thetrees or the 57 thousand dollars. The major clause in the second case was the primary intent beingto vex or annoy the neighbors, i believe it was. Besides that, the trees with out a shadow of a doubtdid block the view of the ocean and did due monetary damages to the value of the Vanderpols'property.

Vasquez, CatalinaI honestly cannot put any feedback on this case. It feels like this could be wealthy class problemswhich i'm no where near at, but seriously trees are trees! If they block their view from the ocean,so what? Go out for a walk, go to the beach & then there they will have their view. Problem solved.They did ensure them that the value of their house would not lower in any way so why make a bigdeal out of it?

Binder AaliyahI disagree with the outcome. I believe that not only did they ruin their view that they paid for but ifthey try to leave and sell the house, it devalues their home. The court should have found that to be adealbreaker. The Starr family ruined the Vanderpols home, it is impossible to get that type of moneyback for a house that now no one wants because the view is no longer there.

9.

CASE: THE NIGHTMARE NEIGHBORS Myra Harris was ready to tear her hair out. She loved her condo on the fourth floor of the Federal Fibre Mills building in New Orleans’s historic and trendy Warehouse District—and who wouldn’t, with its high ceilings, cypress-wood beams, exposed-brick walls and a view of the Mississippi River? But life there had become a nightmare.

Page 11 of 22

Myra’s big headache started when the owner of the unit below leased it in September 2001 to a middle-aged woman. Suddenly Myra was being jolted awake between midnight and six in the morning when the new tenant blasted the television or stereo at full volume, Myra said in court documents. TV noise wasn’t even the worst of it. On numerous occasions, Myra said, the woman would wail and scream in the early morning hours. Myra also claimed that the tenant held loud parties that

lasted late into the night. Myra said in her court petition that her neighbor would bang on the ceiling and pipes with a hard object for hours. The clanging echoed into Myra’s unit above. A number of times, she even called the New Orleans Police Department, which took hours to send officers. To get away from the racket, Myra began sleeping in another neighbor’s condo when he was out of town. In the four months after the downstairs tenant’s arrival, Myra sent 17 letters of complaint to

the condo board, asking it to take action. The board did nothing until January 2002, Myra asserted, when it sent the owner of the condo a letter saying it would enforce the rules. Myra said that she reported the problem to building security, but nothing came of it, other than a visit from a guard, who made some notes in his log—but he eventually stopped responding to Myra’s calls.

She described another time when she called the police and waited for them in the building lobby in the early hours of the morning because of the din. The police told Myra that they could ticket the noisy neighbor, but whatever they did, the situation didn’t change. Finally, Myra decided to file a lawsuit against the condo association, claiming it was responsible for the administration, operation and enforcement of the rules and restrictions that applied to all the condos on the property. Those rules, contained in a document called “The Declaration of

Condominium Regime,” stated that no loud noise, music or other nuisances that would “disturb or annoy” other occupants of the building would be permitted between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. The rules also said that “no noxious or offensive activity” could go on at any time in any unit, and that any nuisance that is “a source of annoyance to residents” would not be allowed. The declaration clearly gave the board the right to enforce the rules and to impose fines for

violations. But, Myra claimed in her lawsuit, instead of helping her, the Federal Fibre Mills board told security personnel to stop responding to her complaints. She also asserted that it had failed to take prompt action against the owner of the condo, who had rented the unit to the problem tenant in the first place. Not until January 15 did the board finally send a letter to the owner saying it would enforce the rules, according to Myra’s petition. Eventually it fined the owner of the condo unit.

For Myra, it was too little, too late. She asked the court to award damages to her for the condominium board’s failure to enforce the building’s rules and for an “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” She claimed the tenant violated her right to enjoy her property without unreasonable disturbance. She also said that the board had failed in its responsibility to protect her rights. The condo board, for its part, argued that Myra had no basis to make a legal claim. Although the

declaration that contained the condo association rules stated that the board had a right to enforcethe rules, it didn’t say that it had a duty to do so. The board added that there was no Louisiana lawthat imposed such a duty. The board contended that it had the absolute right to enforce—or notenforce—the condo rules and restrictions. The choice, it said, was up to the board. Should Myra Harris be compensated for her disturbed peace? You be the judge. Explain youranswer.

Sayanara San

Page 12 of 22

I am unaware of the legal precedent of the state and likeness of the case, its a very "Ify" case andonly the legal precedent would make sense in this cases outcome.! If I were to put myself in herposition i'd be furious that no one is helping me do anything about the situation especially since thecondo association did not do anything to help.

Mendoza, Joseno because she should have figured out another way to deal with this problem

Rodriguez, StefanyYes she should because the other tenant was being to loud and not letting her rest. Although itwasn't in the same room the noise traveled and she was not able to relax in her own home. Not onlythis but she called in for many complaints but no one ever did anything. She should at least getsomething back for the wait.

Garibay, AngelI rule in favor of Myra, the condo board has rules for a reason, and without a doubt their was a noiseviolation and the condo board was negligent. The noise coming from the underneath apartment toMyra's was out of control and did inflict emotion distress with loss of sleep and creation of stress. Itviolated the condos rules and to protect the tenants they should be held responsible for negligentlynot acting.

Vasquez, CatalinaYes she should! Most definitely! If I were to put myself in her position i'd be furious that no one ishelping me do anything about the situation especially since the condo association did not doanything to help.

Binder AaliyahMyra Harris was right to file a complaint on her neighbor and should be compensated from both theneighbor and the security of the building. Myra addressed the situation to the security in the buildingwhom did nothing to make sure that she enjoyes where she was living.

10.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE NIGHTMARE NEIGHBORS Both the trial court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana found that Myra Harris failed to make her case. While she correctly stated that the condominium association had the right to enforce its rules, regulations and restrictions, and to impose fines for violations, both courts agreed that a right is

not a duty. The Louisiana Condominium Act, which lists the powers of an owners’ association, allows—but doesn’t require—condo associations to adopt restrictions on unit owners and to enforce them. Though Myra certainly had a problem and the condo board’s provisions clearly stated it could fine those who disturbed the peace, the board was not required by law to enforce the rules so that she could enjoy her property.

After the decision, Myra moved out and bought a house. She never wanted to deal with a condoboard again. Was justice served? Should the condo board be required to take action on behalf its tenants? Explainyour answer.

Sayanara SanI see no reason why they can't, if there is a problem going on, they should take matters into theirown hands. she should have argued that the purpose of the rules outlined was so that their duty wasclearly outlined and agreed upon by all of the tenants.

Mendoza, Josegusano

Page 13 of 22

Rodriguez, StefanyNo it was not. Why is the condo board there if it is not going to respect the wishes of one of thetenants. Not only does it hurt the tenant but it also hurts them because they will lose money. I guessthe condo board does not want any money.

Garibay, AngelJustice was not served that day, Myra was ignored and allowed to be abused. The condo associationset rules in place for a reason, the reason being to sustain a minimum level of peace and quite, thebelow tenant violated the rules and Myra suffered as a result. Since she was ignored for months sheshould be compensated or the condo association should be punished because of the lingeringdamages she sustained through the long months.

Vasquez, CatalinaI think that the condo board should be required to take action on behalf its tenant. I see no reasonwhy they can't, if there is a problem going on, they should take matters into their own hands.

Binder AaliyahNo, justice wasnt served. Honestly, whether they want to take action or not is their fault, they will bethe ones losing money. Now since the building allows noisy neighbors to disrespect their neighbors,they will be losing out on a lot of business. less people will rent from them and those who do rentwill eventually leave.

11.

CASE: THE SECOND TEXTER David and Linda Kubert were riding together on David’s motorcycle in Morris County, New Jersey, late in the afternoon on September 21, 2009. As the couple, then both 56, rounded a curve, David saw a truck heading directly toward them. He couldn’t swerve in time, and the two vehicles collided. When David regained consciousness, he realized he was lying on the ground, and his left leg was gone, completely and permanently severed during the crash. The bones in Linda’s left leg

were shattered. Doctors amputated her leg later that night. Eight minutes before the collision, then-18-year-old Kyle Best clocked out of his job teaching swimming at the YMCA and slid behind the wheel of his father’s Chevy pickup. He said he sent a few texts while sitting in the parking lot, then headed to his parents’ house for dinner. While on the road, he sent two texts, the last one eight seconds before dialing 911 to report that he’d been in an accident: His truck had veered over the centerline and struck a couple on a Harley.

In June 2010, the Kuberts sued Best for driving in a negligent and careless manner. Attorneys settled the lawsuit two years later. Best’s insurance company paid the couple $500,000. Best pleaded guilty to distracted driving, but his license was never suspended. He paid $775 in fines. At the same time, the Kuberts’ attorney, Skippy Weinstein, was also building a case against then-17-year-old Shannon Colonna, Best’s girlfriend, who had been texting Best at the time of the

crash. In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, Weinstein claimed that Colonna was also liable for the crash because she was “aiding and abetting” by being “electronically present” in the truck. “Why wouldn’t the person he was texting with—who knew that he was driving at the time—be as responsible as he is?” Weinstein asked. Colonna’s attorney, Joseph McGlone, maintained that Colonna did not know that Best was driving

nor that he was reading the texts while driving. “A person might get a text and not read it for threehours or even for three days,” McGlone noted. “How would the texter ever be able to know whetheror not someone read the text while driving?” Should Shannon Colonna be held responsible for a car accident that occurred as she was texting thedriver? You be the judge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara San

Page 14 of 22

I agree with the compromise that was made, if the text er knows the recipient was driving then I canagree with it being a crime. . If she knew he was driving, she should be punished for it same as Best.They both should have known better

Mendoza, Josegusano

Rodriguez, StefanyNo Shannon Colonna should not be responsible. She had no idea that Kyle was driving and texting atthe same time. She shouldn't be held countable for something she wasn't present for or even knewwhat was going on. Her being prosecuted is irrelevant.

Garibay, AngelI declare that the texter should only be held responsible if they knew the recipient was driving at thetime of the sending of the text. If the sender does not know that the recipient was driving then shecould not of possibly knowingly helped in the causing of the accident. However, if the sender knewthat the recipient of their text was driving then she should be help responsible for causing orencouraging the accident.

Vasquez, CatalinaNo! Shannon Colonna should not be held responsible for a car accident that ocurred as she wastexting the driver. What if she didnt know he was driving? they cant put her at fault for that, no way.On the other hand, if she did know Best was driving, then she should be held responsible. Insteadshe should have encouraged him not to text while driving.

Binder AaliyahNo, Best is the one whom decided to text her back, maybe she texted and expected a reply AFTER hegot home. I could understand if she was pestering him to text back, but still that would not be herfault, she does not make decisions for him. She should not be held in contempt because he decidedto text her back

12.

REAL CASE VERDICT: SECOND TEXTER In May 2012, in a Morris County courtroom packed with reporters and TV cameras, a trial judge dismissed the case against Shannon Colonna, noting that drivers are ultimately responsible for controlling their vehicles. The Kuberts appealed. In August 2013, the appellate court upheld the ruling to dismiss the complaint against Colonna but disagreed with the trial court’s opinion on remote texters: “We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is

caused by texting, but only if the sender knew that the recipient would view the text while drivingand thus be distracted.” Weinstein, the Kuberts’ attorney, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court butlater withdrew it. “The decision by the appeals court changed the law,” he explained. “Textingsomeone you know is driving is now a crime. We wanted it to stay that way.” Was justice served? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanNo, how is it for sure that you know that person started driving, or how did you know that personwas going to text back. Maybe they have someone to tell the person that they must see when theyget home. Their are too many factors for this to become a law

Rodriguez, StefanyI can understand why she did get in trouble and how the law changed. The other person should andonly be held liable if they know that the other person is driving. If she does not know then sheshould not be held countable for the accident. I agree with the last statement.

Garibay, AngelYes justice was served. The sender of the text should only be held responsible only if they knew theperson receiving the text would be or is driving. However, the court set a risky precedent to the law,if someone sends a text and a driver sees it a few hours later then is the sender liable or theaccident, if not then how long can they be held responsible for sending the text.

Page 15 of 22

Vasquez, CatalinaYes, & thats exactly what I said in my last answer. If she knew he was driving, she should be punishedfor it same as Best. They both should have known better

Binder AaliyahNo, how is it for sure that you know that person started driving, or how did you know that personwas going to text back. Maybe they have someone to tell the person that they must see when theyget home. There are too many factors for this to become a law. For me, I know sometimes i tell myfriends I am about to drive however I dont leave at that exact moment and they still text me.

13.

CASE: THE KID AND THE CASH Jessica Douglas gave birth to a baby girl named Jamie on April 22, 1998. Soon after, the pair moved in with Douglas’s boyfriend, Scott Moore, whom Douglas had been dating for some time. Though they all lived together in Moore’s Michigan home on and off for several months, Moore wasn’t entirely certain that he was Jamie’s father. In fact, he filed a complaint to determine the child’s paternity. Results from the DNA test came back at the beginning of September and proved that

Moore was indeed Jamie’s dad. By then, however, Douglas and little Jamie had moved out. Though Moore no longer supported them financially, he was still, according to Douglas, “a father to [Jamie].” Less than a month after he received the paternity results, Moore was working a job at an apartment complex for his employer, Prestige Painting. A gust of wind caused him to lose control of an aluminum extension ladder he was carrying, and the ladder touched an overhead power line.

Moore was electrocuted. He died shortly after. On behalf of her daughter, Douglas filed a petition to receive death benefits from Prestige Painting. In September 2002, a Workers’ Compensation Board magistrate ruled that Jamie was eligible for benefits, since, according to the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, a child under the age of 16—whether legitimate or illegitimate, whether living with the deceased employee or not—“shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support.” The magistrate awarded Douglas

500 weeks of benefits at $252.33 a week. “The order was clearly in the best interest of the child,” says Douglas’s attorney, Allen Wall. But within days, Prestige Painting appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC). Attorney Robert W. Macy called the magistrate’s decision a “legal error” and cited a different statute in the same Compensation Act, which stated that a child had to be “living with” the

employee at the time of death to be considered an eligible dependent. Should Prestige Painting be required to pay death benefits to Scott Moore’s daughter even thoughthe child wasn’t living with him when he died on the job? You be the judge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanI think the child should receive the money, the first statue affirms that the child should receive themoney and the second seemed to be cherry picked to save money. -Yes because she is anemotionally disturbed child already dealing with the death of her mother because of their ladder andwiring. They should give that money to her despite anything else.

Rodriguez, StefanyI believe that Prestige Painting should not pay for the child since she was not living with the parent.The mom decided to move out therefor the child does not get the money from the job. The child canonly get the money if she was listed as a dependent of her dad. Otherwise they shouldn't.

Garibay, AngelPrestige painting should not be held responsible for paying the death benefits. The daughter was notunder financial support of her father at the time of the father's death. So why would the daughterneed financial support when they are not under any restricted support from the father's death.

Page 16 of 22

Vasquez, CatalinaYes prestige painting should be required to pay death benefits to scott moore's daughter althoughtheChloe wasn't living with him when he died on the job because that's still his daughter no matterwhat!it doesnt change even if she was not living with him or not

Binder AaliyahYes prestige painting should pay compensation to the daughter. Just because kids dont live with theirfather doesnt mean that the father is not in their life. He still claimed her as a daughter so sheshould get money. Honestly, prestige painting is simply selfish, the daughter has a right to benefitsfrom her fathers death which could help with future finances. Prestige Painting is obviously trying tohold on to money from their dead employee

14.

In 2003, the WCAC reversed the magistrate’s ruling, denying benefits for Jamie. But this legal battle was far from finished. Over the next four years, in appeal after appeal, Wall and Macy argued over those two workers’ comp statutes. They finally agreed to apply the rule stating that the child was not required to be living with the employee to receive benefits. Then the debate focused on which specific points in that statute were applicable here. The final question came down to this: Had Moore “deserted” Jamie? According to the second sentence in the statute, a child is “dependent for support upon a deceased employee” if the child “has been deserted by such deceased employee.”

In December 2007, the Court of Appeals gave the last word: “We conclude that decedent Scott Mooredid not desert his daughter, Jamie Douglas, and, as a result, Jamie was not a conclusive dependent.”Jamie was, therefore, not eligible for benefits. Had Moore deserted Jamie, she would have beeneligible. Says Douglas’s attorney, “It kind of makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it?” Was justice served? Does Jamie Douglas deserve benefits? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanThe ruling is completely backwards, the child was not deserted so she should be protected andreceive the money but the ruling was that because she wasn't deserted she wasn't able to becompensated for her parents death. They did not know for surely know if Moore had deserted hisdaughter, its easier to say because he is dead & he cant be able to be present to back it up withevidence.

Rodriguez, StefanyThis question has me confused Tyler.

Garibay, AngelJustice was not served. Through legal controversy the child was not deserted by the father eventhough financially she was deserted but because she was not then she is not entitled to the deathbenefits. The laws make no sense and so then I think the courts should have awarded the moneybecause of actually being not involved or not being compensated because of the father was not overthe child legally.

Vasquez, CatalinaThis is all based on assumptions. They did not know for surely know if Moore had deserted hisdaughter, its easier to say because he is dead & he cant be able to be present to back it up withevidence.

Binder AaliyahYes Jamie douglas deserves benefits from her fathers death. It doesnt make sense honestly. i believethat since the child was NOT deserted she should receive compensation. It doesnt make sense forher to receive it if she is deserted

Page 17 of 22

15.

CASE: THE FALLING FILMGOER On Christmas Day in 2003, Nancy Sue Brown took her daughter and grandchildren to see the film Cheaper by the Dozen at an AMC movie theater in a Georgia mall. The theater was packed. When the film was over, Brown, then 63, followed the large crowd through the lobby toward the exit. As she passed the concession stand, she suddenly tripped, then tumbled to the ground.

About ten minutes earlier, an AMC employee had mopped up a spilled drink in the area and placed a sign saying Wet Floor over the spot. It was an A-frame sign—the kind used by businesses everywhere—made of bright yellow plastic, with CAUTION in red capital letters across the top. The sign had fallen over—probably trampled by the crowd—and Brown hadn’t seen it lying flat on the floor. “There [were] people all around me,” she explained. “If I had been looking down … I probably would have run into them.”

Her left foot caught in the handle of the sign, and she fell forward, hitting her head on the carpeted floor. An ambulance rushed her to the hospital. She had no serious head injuries, but doctors told her that she had broken several bones in her left foot. She wore a cast for four months. Two years later, Brown had back surgery to address injuries she believed she’d sustained in the fall. A month after the surgery, in December 2005, Brown and her husband sued AMC, claiming the

movie-theater chain was negligent for placing a “tripping hazard” in an area they knew would be“trafficked by hordes of customers.” The Browns demanded $383,000 to cover pain and sufferingand medical expenses. AMC’s attorney, Christopher Ziegler, wondered, “Where else would you put aWet Floor sign than where people are walking?” Was AMC responsible for a filmgoer’s tripping over a sign that had been knocked down? You be thejudge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanThey cant blame AMC for something they didnt do, its ridiculous. They put up a sign that clearly saidthat the floor was wet, if ab employee did not see that the sign was knocked down then theyshouldnt be serving the consequences.The theater chain is not at fault, they are legally required toput the sign when a wet area is accessible, so if the court rules them at fault then they risk adangerous situation for companies.

Garibay, AngelAMC is not responsible for the sign. The trivial decision of putting the sign up to not be sued forslipping or putting up the sign to be sued for tripping would kill businesses and create con artists.The next page is gonna site a case that stated was the company ignoring the sign when it fell andthen responsible or did they not have enough time to set it back up, AMC did not.

Vasquez, CatalinaI don't think AMC should be responsible for a filmgoer's tripping over a sign that had been knockeddown. They cant blamd AMC for something they didnt do, its ridiculous. They put up a sign thatclearly said that the floor was wet, if ab employee did not see that the sign was knocked down thenthey shouldnt be serving the consequences.

Binder AaliyahNo AMC should not be responsible because the sign fell over. Also, Nancy Sue should have beenmore careful. With all of those people at the movies she should have expected for there to bemesses. If she was careful along with everyone else in the movies. The sign would have not fell overand she would have not slipped

Page 18 of 22

16.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE FALLING FILMGOER It took three courts four years to make a final decision in the case. In 2005, a state judge in Clayton County, Georgia, threw out the case, ruling that AMC had “properly positioned” the sign. The judge based his dismissal on a similar case that he said had set a precedent in trip-and-fall cases. In that 2002 case, the judge had found that a bakery wasn’t liable for a woman’s injuries because the Wet Floor sign she had tripped over hadn’t been down long enough for an employee to notice.

The Browns appealed, arguing that their case deserved to be heard because AMC had placed the sign in the path of a herd of people and should have known the sign would become a hazard. In 2008, the Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed with the Browns and ordered a trial by jury. AMC appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. “If a business fails to put a sign over a spill, they can be sued. If they do, they can be sued. What are they supposed to do?” Ziegler asked during the case.

But the Supreme Court ruling went in favor of the Browns. AMC didn’t fulfill “its legal duty to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the public,” wrote the court. In 2009, the case went to trial in Clayton County, in front of the same judge who had reviewed it four years earlier. The jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes and then ruled that AMC was not liable and that Brown, who passed away in August 2012, would not receive any compensation.

Was justice served? Is the theater liable for Brown’s fall? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanJustice was served. The theater should not be held liable for Brown's fall. They put up a wet sign &that's all they could do. if the company was found liable then all companies would be potentiallysued by con artists in that situation.

Garibay, AngelMr Tyler, class is almost over and I am pretty much answering the same response for the twoquestions asked.

Vasquez, CatalinaJustice was served. The theater should not be held liable for Brown's fall. They put up a wet sign &that's all they could do.

Binder AaliyahThe theater is not liable for The fall. They did all they could by putting up a sign. When it got knockedover it was not their fault. They should not have been expected to sit around and put up the signevery time it fell, they had a lot of customers to tend to.

17.

CASE: THE PEEPING PHOTOGRAPHER Through the floor-to-ceiling windows of the building across the street from his, New York City photographer Arne Svenson watched his neighbors going about their daily routines—sipping coffee, reading the newspaper, napping. He saw a woman twirling her hair, illuminated by lamplight, and a dog gazing out the window at the busy street below. Svenson watched these activities with his camera, too, shooting dozens of pictures in 2012, many of which ended up in a

gallery as a photo show called, you guessed it, The Neighbors. The neighbors themselves first learned of their starring roles in Svenson’s pictures after one couple, Martha and Matthew Foster, happened upon a newspaper review of Svenson’s show, which included images of the Fosters and their children, their faces and partially clad bodies easily discernible.

Page 19 of 22

Just weeks later, the Fosters sued Svenson for possession of the photos, arguing that he had violated their civil rights under New York’s Civil Rights Law, which states that a person’s name or portrait cannot be used for advertising or trade purposes without written consent. The photographs from Svenson’s show were on sale in New York City and Los Angeles galleries and on a photography website for as much as $7,500 a picture. The Fosters asked the court to block Svenson from displaying and selling the images, asserting that they were “greatly frightened and

angered” by the unwanted publicity. They maintained that they were forced to keep their shades drawn during the day. Svenson insisted he was not a Peeping Tom with a camera. “I am not photographing the residents as identifiable individuals but as representations of humankind,” he told a reporter, arguing that his neighbors’ identities were obscured through photographic effects or framing. “I don’t photograph anything salacious or demeaning. I hope my neighbors can see the beauty in my

treatment of [their images].” Was it legal for Svenson to sell photos of the Fosters and other neighbors without permission? Yoube the judge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanNo, any photos taken of another person should be taken with their consent and the distributionwould be cause for the suing.it was legal gor Svenson to sell photos of the Fosters and otherneighbors withoutpermission. First of all, thats just simply creepy. Who takes photos of their neighbors on the low low?I would be afraid & terrified lf that. Even worse he sells the photos and everybody sees them

Garibay, AngelAs the judge in this case I would select this illegal for taking photos of people without their consentand publishing them. Law states you need permission for taking and publishing the photos and theprotection of free speech in the next thing is pretty craptastic. The rights of another should not go tothat extent of violating another rights and privacy.

Vasquez, CatalinaI don't think it was legal for Svenson to sell photos of the Fosters and other neighbors withoutpermission. First of all, thats just simply creepy. Who takes photos of their neighbors on the low low?I would be afraid & terrified lf that. Even worse he sells the photos and everybody sees themP

Binder AaliyahI believe Svenson did not have a right to sell the photos of the Fosters. The fosters did not giveconsent for the picture to be taken let alone used. It is no fair that Svenson is receiving benefits fromthe photo and the Fosters receive nothing. They do not even receive a warning.

18.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE PEEPING PHOTOGRAPHER Nearly three months after the Fosters sued, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Eileen Rakower ruled that Arne Svenson’s work is art, which is considered free speech and therefore is protected by the First Amendment. “While it may make [the Fosters] cringe to think that their private lives can find their way into an art exhibit, there is no redress under the current laws of New York,” wrote Judge Rakower. The decision stated that Svenson didn’t need his neighbors’ permission to display and sell

the photos of them. Though he was not legally required to do so, Svenson removed photos of the Fosters from his website and agreed not to take any new pictures or print, exhibit, or publish any of the Fosters’ photos in the future. In September 2013, the Fosters filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Manhattan

Page 20 of 22

Supreme Court. The case is pending. Was justice served? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanNo, his freedom obstructed their right to privacy, but the man was kind enough to do the right thingthankfully.it was not served because that is honestly creepy and i would feel violated. Who knows ifhe hadn't taken any other photos.

Garibay, AngelNo.

Vasquez, CatalinaI believe yes, as long as Svenson does not post anymore pictures or videos of the Fosters, theyshould be fine.

Binder AaliyahNo he still used their pictures without consent and that is wrong. If he would have drew them itwould be different. But a simple picture i believe that is violating their right to privacy.

19.

CASE: THE PROHIBITED POOCH By November 2000, six months after Joyce Grad had moved into Royalwood Cooperative Apartments in Royal Oak, Michigan, she was getting anxious about her seasonal descent into depression. “It always gets worse in winter,” says the now-64-year-old, who describes her feelings at that time as “suicidal.” She adds, “I was watching the leaves fall and thinking, I don’t think I can do this.”

Grad had been living alone on Social Security disability for years due to bipolar disorder, causing severe depression that prevented her from working. Sometimes it was so bad, she could barely get out of bed. Worried about her inactivity, she reasoned, If I had a dog, I would have to go outside for walks. But the co-op board had a no-pet policy. Grad wrote to the board, asking it to waive the policy and allow her to have a small dog. Grad

stated that according to the Fair Housing Act, “it is unlawful discrimination to deny a person with a disability ‘a reasonable accommodation of an existing building rule or policy if such accommodation may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.’” She included letters from her psychiatrist and psychologist stating that a dog would help with her “debilitating depressive disorder.”

But the board rejected Grad’s request. Two months later, Grad moved to an apartment in a building a few miles from Royalwood that allowed pets, and she acquired a ten-pound gray poodle from a family in the neighborhood. Grad named the dog Lady and trained the poodle to coax her out of bed in the morning and to take her home if she was out and experienced a panic attack.

About ten months after leaving Royalwood, Grad filed a complaint against the apartment complex with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD investigated and, in August 2003, filed a civil complaint against Royalwood, claiming that it had, in fact, discriminated against Grad and violated the Fair Housing Act. “The legal question was whether the requested accommodation would have lessened the effect of the disability,” explains Grad’s attorney, Gabrielle Frampton. “Would the dog have helped? Or

Page 21 of 22

would it have just been a pet?” Did Royalwood Cooperative Apartments discriminate against Joyce Grad by not waiving its no-petpolicy? You be the judge. Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanSince the dog was used and reportedly used to help ease the disability then the dog was going to beused to ease the disability, making the former apartment complex responsible for the violation. theydid discriminate against Joyce Grad by not waiving its no-pet policy because of her disorder. Theywere making judgement & does not look good what so ever, they deserved to be sued

Garibay, AngelClass is over

Vasquez, CatalinaYes they did discriminate against Joyce Grad by not waiving its no-pet policy because of her disorder.They were making judgement & does not look good what so ever, they deserved to be sued

Binder AaliyahIm not really sure on this one I think that they should have allowed a dog as long as it wouldn't havebeen a nuisance to others living their. I think that if it was able to help her then maybe it should havebeen allowed. Could have helped her and improved her for the better

20.

REAL CASE VERDICT: THE PROHIBITED POOCH Instead of having HUD settle the matter, Royalwood opted to let a federal jury decide. In February 2005, in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Royalwood’s attorney, Patrick Rode, argued that the defendants didn’t “believe” Grad was disabled. One co-op board member testified, “We all observed her walking around the property happy as a lark, very friendly, very gregarious. What disability?” The defendants also claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that a service

animal would lessen the impact of Grad’s alleged disability, as it would for, say, a blind person. “The dog is nothing more than a pet that need not be accommodated,” explained Rode. “They were so completely rigid,” says Frampton, Grad’s attorney. “It was mind-boggling.” In the end, the jury ruled for Grad—the first federal verdict that recognized mental illness as a disability under the Fair Housing Act. Grad was awarded $14,209 in actual damages and settled with the defendants for additional punitive damages.

Was justice served? Does Grad deserve compensation from Royalwood? Explain your answer.

Sayanara SanJustice was served, the compensation was unnecessary in the large amount, a rule change wouldhave sufficed, and now the court has set a dangerous precedent with mental illness recognized as adisability. How do they know? Just because they have seen her walking around the nieghborhoodhappy, doesnt mean shes doing may.Common sense

Garibay, AngelBye Mr. Tyler.

Vasquez, CatalinaYes she does deserve compensation from Royalwood. The defendant still continued to discrimateGrad saying she was not disabled & that she looked perfectly fine. How do they know? Just becausethey have seen her walking around the nieghborhood happy, doesnt mean shes doing omay.Common sense

Binder AaliyahYes Grad deserves compensation from Royalwood. They stripped her of a right to have somethingthat could have helped her in the long run

Page 22 of 22