Friday, September 9, 2011

The Flip Side of Employment-At-Will

Here is an iteration of the law of employment-at-will doctrine:

All may dismiss their employees at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong.
                - Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co., 81 Tenn. 507, 519-520, 1884 WL 469 at 6 (Sep. term 1884).

The flip side, of course, is that employees may quit without reason or notice. Hence, the policy of maintaining freedom of ingress and egress in the labor market is protected.

From the movie Waiting, "I quit." (Click on picture to go to video)


Longer Version: (Click on picture to go to video)



Take This Job and Shove It:

Thursday, September 8, 2011

RIAA - Campus Downloading Video

This video from the RIAA dealing with "peeer to peer file sharing" may trend a bit toward propaganda, but the facts seem to be correct and it is an important issue for students to understand. See a related post here.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Law Lessong - Substantial Performance

The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is Substantial Performance. This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation helps set up a hypothetical of the construction of a new college dormitory for students to consider when substantial performance applies and has been achieved. Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here. More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

"Actual Innocence" is NOT Grounds For a New Trial

My summer reading included a couple of books that I was considering for use in class.  The first was John’s Grisham’s, The Innocent Man. Grisham’s only non-fiction work is a legal horror story.  To say that the two accused defendants in this 1980’s murder were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death is a woefully inadequate summary. The defendants were convicted by juries on the basis of what could be generously described as zero evidence.  Any evidence that did exist was contradictory and speculative. Yet, juries in rural Oklahoma apparently subscribe to the theory that if the police arrested  these guys, they must be guilty. The defendants were eventually exonerated by DNA evidence after intervention by The Innocence Project.  The book was an easy read, but I was worried about students dismissing the story as dated.  Too often, students respond to anecdotal stories about the legal system with the comment, “Well, that wouldn’t happen today,” or “Today, there is always DNA evidence that is conclusive,” or some similar comment.
A more promising resource was presented by the book, Human Sacrifice by James P. Moore.  The book chronicles the conviction and sentencing to life in prison (Maine does not have the death penalty) of Dennis Dechaine for the murder of a twelve year old girl in the rural mid-coast community of Bowdoin, Maine. The evidence, entirely circumstantial, was somewhat more convincing than the miserably non-credible case put together in the Oklahoma examples.  However, the book chronicles well a syndrome in law enforcement that can represent a crucial flaw in a system that needs to seek truth.  If law enforcement officials are not careful to remain objective, then there may come a point in the investigation where police cease to look for clues pointing to truth and instead proceed to gather evidence to prove the guilt of a favored suspect. This syndrome affected the police investigation in the Oklahoma cases but is so obviously prevalent in the Dechaine case as to have fatally prevented the likelihood of the truth ever being discovered.  (I am being purposely vague on the details so as not to spoil the reader’s experience.)  The short story is that Dechaine is obviously innocent (based on the evidence as described in the book) and has spent more than 22 years in jail. 
Although not as expertly  written as The Innocent Man, I am considering Human Sacrifice as the superior pedagogical resource for two principal reasons.  The first is that it rebuts the “there is always DNA evidence” retort of today’s students.  In this case, the defense’s request for DNA testing was refused by the trial judge because it likely would have delayed the trial for a month.  So, there isn’t always DNA evidence when an inexplicable legal ruling prevents it from assisting the truth seeking process. The second consideration is that this case is ongoing and continues to produce stunning legal rulings.  The DNA tests, completed post-conviction, show that the genetic material under the victim’s fingernails do not match Dechaine. This past July, the court ruled, over the prosecution’s objections, that the DNA tests may be run against the state’s database of 20,000+ samples taken from convicts. But the most provocative ruling was handed down just two weeks ago.  PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT: The book’s premise is that the most compelling evidence of Dechaine’s innocence is the scientific evidence surrounding the time of the victim’s death. However, the Brunswick Times Record reports that the court has determined that witnesses possessing this information may not testify to that effect. In Maine, as is the case in many other states, actual innocence is not grounds for a new trial. This is a concept that students can ponder deeply and discuss enthusiastically.  If the legal process is a “search for truth,” then this statement makes absolutely no sense. Therefore, the conclusion may be drawn, that the legal process is something less than a search for truth.  Justice is apparently a goal less desired than dispute resolution – even when lives are at stake.

Dennis Dechaine (1988)


Dennis Dechaine (2011):

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Law Music Video - He Fades Away

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is He fades Away performed by Kate Fagan. The song was written by Alistair Hullet and illuminates the position of a miners' wife as she watches her husband slowly die of mesothelioma. Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Thursday, September 1, 2011

What a "Good Samaritan Law" is Not

Often, legal education involves busting myths and folklore that has crept into consciousness as "knowledge" through various popular culture mediums. Famously, the last Seinfeld episode saw the protagonists prosecuted for failing to help someone in danger.  The law was referred to as a "Good Samaritan Law."  Judging from the way the local sheriff character drawls out that title, it seems as if the Seinfeld writers believed that they cleverly thought that up on their own. Of course, there are "Good Samaritan Laws" that are statutes designed to address the common law principle that one who seeks to provide assistance to another, has a responsibility to do so with due care or risk liability for negligent rescue. The Good Samaritan statutes, though differing somewhat from state to state, have the principal purpose of insulating the would be rescuer from liability for regular negligence as long as the rescue attempt was undertaken in good faith. Individual state statutes should be consulted for specific requirements.

Because the protection is stautory, would be rescuers must fall within the statutory definition to gain the Good Samaritan protection. In Van Horn v. Watson, the California Supreme Court considered whether a woman who pulled a co-worker from a car wreck was protected by the provisions of the California Good Samaritan statute. The statute protects rescuers who are providing "emergency care." The court determined that the statutory language "emergency care" was more properly read as "emergency medical care." The rescuer in this case pulled the plaintiff from a car wreck fearing a fire. The court determined that act to be outside of the definition of "medical" care and therefore, the defendant could not avail herself of the statutory protection.

Seinfeld and friends committing the crime of "criminal indifference."



A suprisingly uninformative national news media report of the Van Horn v. Watson case from California: