Expert answer:Identify the Legal Issue and Legal Argument

Solved by verified expert:Relying on the cases provided, identify the legal issue and legal argument on Las Vegas shooting issue. I am the defender for my client ( the hotel and weapons store or factory) . Using IRAC method.
james_v._arms_technology__inc.__359_n.j._super._291.pdf

lovelace_v._anderson__366_md._690.pdf

roueche_v._hotel_braddock__inc.__164_md._620.pdf

merrill_v._navegar__inc.__26_cal._4th_465.pdf

stewart_v._united_electric_light___power_co.__104_md._3.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Caution
As of: October 8, 2017 3:05 AM Z
James v. Arms Technology, Inc.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
December 9, 2002, Argued ; March 11, 2003, Decided
A-3098-01T3, A-3103-01T3, A-3487-01T3
Reporter
359 N.J. Super. 291 *; 820 A.2d 27 **; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89 ***
MAYOR SHARPE JAMES AND THE CITY OF
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFSRESPONDENTS, v. ARMS TECHNOLOGY,
INCORPORATED; B.L. JENNINGS, INC.; BERETTA
U.S.A.; BROWNING ARMS CO.; BRYCO ARMS;
COLT’S MANUFACTURING CO.; GLOCK, INC.; H & R;
HECKLER & KOCH, INC.; INTERNATIONAL
ARMAMENT CORP. (D/B/A “INTERARMS
INDUSTRIES, INC.”); MKS SUPPLY, INC. (D/B/A “HIPOINT FIREARMS”); PHOENIX ARMS; SIGARMS,
INC.; SMITH & WESSON CORP.; STURM, RUGER &
COMPANY, INC.; TAURUS INTERNATIONAL
MANUFACTURING, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,
AND ARCADIA MACHINE & TOOL; CARL WALTHER;
CHARTER ARMS, INC.; DAVIS INDUSTRIES; FORJAS
TAURUS, S.A.; FULL METAL JACKET, INC.; GLOCK
GMBH; HECKLER & KOCH, GMBH; LORCIN
ENGINEERING CO., INC.; NAVEGAR, INC. (D/B/A
“INTRATEC”); FABBRICA D’ARMI PIETRO BERETTA
S.P.A.; SUNDANCE INDUSTRIES; NATIONAL
SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.; SPORTING
ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS
INSTITUTE, INC.; NAVY ARMS COMPANY, INC.;
RAY’S SPORTING GOODS, DEFENDANTS. MAYOR
SHARPE JAMES AND THE CITY OF NEWARK,
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. RAY’S SPORTING
GOODS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND ARCADIA
MACHINE & TOOL; ARMS TECHNOLOGY,
INCORPORATED; B.L. JENNINGS, INC.; BERETTA
U.S.A.; BROWNING ARMS CO.; BRYCO ARMS; CARL
WALTHER; CHARTER ARMS, INC.; COLT’S
MANUFACTURING CO.; DAVIS INDUSTRIES;
FORJAS TAURUS, S.A.; FULL METAL JACKET, INC.;
GLOCK, INC.; GLOCK GMBH; H & R; HECKLER &
KOCH, INC.; HECKLER & KOCH, GMBH;
INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENT CORP. (D/B/A
“INTERARMS INDUSTRIES, INC.”); LORCIN
ENGINEERING CO., INC.; MKS SUPPLY, INC. (D/B/A
“HI-POINT FIREARMS”); NAVEGAR, INC. (D/B/A
“INTRATEC”); PHOENIX ARMS; FABBRICA D’ARMI
PIETRO BERETTA S.P.A.; SIGARMS, INC.; SMITH &
WESSON CORP.; STURM, RUGER & COMPANY,
INC.; SUNDANCE INDUSTRIES, INC.; TAURUS
INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC.;
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.;
SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION
MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC.; NAVY ARMS
COMPANY, DEFENDANTS. MAYOR SHARPE JAMES
AND THE CITY OF NEWARK, PLAINTIFFSRESPONDENTS, v. NAVY ARMS COMPANY, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND ARCADIA MACHINE
& TOOL; ARMS TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED;
B.L. JENNINGS, INC.; BERETTA U.S.A.; BROWNING
ARMS CO.; BRYCO ARMS; CARL WALTHER;
CHARTER ARMS, INC.; COLT’S MANUFACTURING
CO.; DAVIS INDUSTRIES; FORJAS TAURUS, S.A.;
FULL METAL JACKET, INC.; GLOCK, INC.; GLOCK
GMBH; H & R; HECKLER & KOCH, INC.; HECKLER &
KOCH, GMBH; INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENT CORP.
(D/B/A “INTERARMS INDUSTRIES, INC.”); LORCIN
ENGINEERING CO., INC.; MKS SUPPLY, INC. (D/B/A
“HI-POINT FIREARMS”); NAVEGAR, INC. (D/B/A
“INTRATEC”); PHOENIX ARMS; FABBRICA D’ARMI
PIETRO BERETTA S.P.A.; SIGARMS, INC.; SMITH &
WESSON CORP.; STURM RUGER & COMPANY,
INC.; SUNDANCE INDUSTRIES, INC.; TAURUS
INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC.;
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.;
SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION
MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC.; RAY’S
SPORTING GOODS, DEFENDANTS.
Subsequent History: [***1] Approved for Publication
March 11, 2003.
Prior History: On appeal from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, ESX-L-605999.
Core Terms
Tamal Banton
Page 2 of 24
359 N.J. Super. 291, *291; 820 A.2d 27, **27; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89, ***1
gun, defendants’, public nuisance, manufacturers,
City’s, firearms, proximate cause, damages,
remoteness, Municipal, injuries, cases, courts,
handguns, allegations, pleadings, nuisance, services,
costs, tortfeasors, foreseeable, regulation, matter of law,
antitrust, funds, public right, third party, distributing,
marketing, ordinance
Civil Procedure > … > Defenses, Demurrers &
Objections > Motions to Dismiss > Failure to State
Claim
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of
Review > General Overview
HN1[
] Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Defendants,
some
gun
manufacturers,
trade
associations, and distributors/retailers, moved to
dismiss the tort claims of plaintiffs, a city and its mayor.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex
County, dismissed all the claims except those for
negligent marketing and distribution of guns,
negligence in not designing safer guns, public
nuisance, and punitive damages. Several gun
manufacturers and two distributors/retailers appealed.
Overview
In claiming negligence, plaintiffs alleged that defendants
encouraged an illegal gun market by selling more guns
than warranted by the legitimate gun market without
adequate supervision or regulation, which foreseeably
fueled crime and caused the city to spend large sums
on police and other services. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants caused a public nuisance by creating and
fueling an illegal gun market which unreasonably
interfered with the public welfare, knowing or having
reason to know the significant effect on a public right.
The appellate court held that dismissal of the
negligence, nuisance, and punitive damages claims was
properly denied. Contrary to the appealing defendants’
argument, the city’s damages were not too remote from
defendants’ conduct to establish proximate cause, as
the city described harm that was fairly traceable to the
conduct; the city claimed fiscal harm to itself, without
relying on injury to third parties; and public policy
favored allowing the claim. Second, the city had
standing to seek redress for its fiscal damages. Finally,
the public nuisance claim did not require allegations of
interference with land use or violation of a statute or
ordinance.
Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the order.
LexisNexis® Headnotes
In considering a ruling on a motion to dismiss, an
appellate court is not concerned with the plaintiff’s ability
to prove the facts alleged in its complaint. The appellate
court’s role is to decide whether, indulgently read, the
fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned from
the pleadings, giving the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable factual inferences that the allegations
support.
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
HN2[
] Causation, Proximate Cause
The six-factor, proximate cause/standing antitrust
analysis applied by the federal and Connecticut courts
considers (1) the causal connection between
defendant’s wrongdoing and plaintiff’s harm; (2) the
specific intent of defendant to harm plaintiff; (3) the
nature of plaintiff’s alleged injury (and whether it relates
to the purpose of the antitrust laws, i.e., ensuring
competition within economic markets); (4) the directness
or lack of directness of the asserted injury; (5) whether
the damages claim is highly speculative; and (6)
keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within
judicially manageable limits, i.e., avoiding either the risk
of duplicate recoveries on the one hand, or the danger
of complex apportionment of damages on the other.
Antitrust & Trade Law > … > Private
Actions > Standing > General Overview
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > General
Overview
HN3[
Tamal Banton
] Private Actions, Standing
Page 3 of 24
359 N.J. Super. 291, *291; 820 A.2d 27, **27; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89, ***1
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
The six-factor, proximate cause/standing antitrust
analysis applied by the federal and Connecticut courts
does not fit squarely in a case involving application of
traditional tort concepts under New Jersey law. One of
the central elements of proximate cause under federal
antitrust law is the “directness” of the relationship
between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct
alleged. Measuring “directness” in the context of anticompetitive conduct and damages does not necessarily
square with contemporary tort doctrine, one objective of
which is to ensure that innocent victims have avenues of
legal redress, absent a contrary overriding policy. This
policy reflects New Jersey’s overarching policy that
wronged persons should be compensated for their
injuries and that those responsible for the wrong should
bear the cost of their tortious conduct.
Civil Procedure > … > Defenses, Demurrers &
Objections > Motions to Dismiss > Failure to State
Claim
Torts > Negligence > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Dismissal > Involuntary
Dismissals > Failure to State Claims
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > Causation in
Fact
HN4[
] Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim
Under the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss a
negligence claim for failure to state a claim under N.J.
Ct. R. 4:6-2(e), the issue is whether the plaintiff’s case is
one of the rarest of instances meriting dismissal of the
complaint on the pleadings. If so, the court must be
persuaded that the allegations as to cause-in-fact
contained in the complaint, giving the plaintiff the benefit
of all reasonable factual inferences that those
allegations support, are insufficient as a matter of law to
set forth a negligence claim.
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > Causation in
Fact
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > General
Overview
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > Concurrent
Causation
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > Foreseeability of Harm
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > Intervening
Causation
HN5[
] Causation, Causation in Fact
As a general proposition, a plaintiff claiming negligence
must prove “causation in fact;” that is, the result
complained of would not have occurred “but for” the
negligence of the defendant. A proximate cause need
not be the sole cause of harm. It suffices if it is a
substantial contributing factor to the harm suffered. In
other words, a tortfeasor will be held accountable if its
negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing
the injury even when there are other intervening causes
which were foreseeable or were normal incidents of the
risk created. This substantial factor test accounts for the
fact that there can be any number of intervening causes
between the initial wrongful act and the final injurious
consequence and does not require an unsevered
connecting link between the negligent conduct and the
ultimate harm. Consequently, the fact that there may be
multiple links between the defendant’s conduct and the
ultimate harm suffered by the plaintiff does not
necessarily cancel out cause in fact as a matter of law,
given New Jersey’s settled rules respecting
foreseeability and concurrent causes.
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
HN6[
] Causation, Proximate Cause
A plaintiff who complains of harm flowing merely from
the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the
defendant’s acts is generally said to stand at too remote
a distance to recover.
Civil Procedure > … > Defenses, Demurrers &
Objections > Motions to Dismiss > Failure to State
Tamal Banton
Page 4 of 24
359 N.J. Super. 291, *291; 820 A.2d 27, **27; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89, ***1
Claim
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
HN7[
Torts > Negligence > General Overview
] Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim
By examining a plaintiff’s complaint with a generous and
hospitable approach, a court, in considering a motion to
dismiss a negligence claim on the ground of lack of
proximate cause, must give the plaintiff the benefit of
the doubt and allow it to establish through discovery that
its damages are, to a degree of reasonable probability,
attributable to the defendant’s violations as distinct from
other, independent factors.
HN9[
] Causation, Proximate Cause
New Jersey courts decline to impose liability for
negligence where there are “highly extraordinary”
consequences resulting from the defendant’s conduct.
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > General
Overview
Torts > … > Causation > Proximate
Cause > General Overview
HN10[
Torts > … > Elements > Causation > General
Overview
HN8[
] Causation, Proximate Cause
Proximate cause as an expression as much of policy as
it is an expression of the effect of sequential events.
] Causation, Proximate Cause
While proximate cause is generally defined as the
natural and probable effect of the wrongdoing, fairness
and policy also enter into an assessment of the causal
relationship between the conduct and the accidental
harm. At bottom, the generic label “proximate cause” is
a judicial tool used to limit a party’s responsibility based
on notions of fairness and policy. As a practical matter,
legal responsibility must be limited to those causes
which are so closely connected with the result and of
such significance that the law is justified in imposing
liability. Some boundary must be set to liability for the
consequences of any act, upon the basis of some social
idea of justice or policy. This limitation is sometimes,
although rather infrequently, one of the fact of
causation. More often it is purely one of policy, of our
more or less inadequately expressed ideas of what
justice demands, or of administrative possibility and
convenience, none of which have any connection with
questions of causation at all. The actor’s conduct may
be held not to be a legal cause of harm to another
where, after the event and looking back from the harm
to the actor’s negligent conduct, it appears to the court
highly extraordinary that it should have brought about
the harm.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Weapons
Offenses > Use of Weapons > General Overview
Governments > Local Governments > Claims By &
Against
Torts > Negligence > General Overview
Governments > Police Powers
HN11[
] Weapons Offenses, Use of Weapons
Guns are dangerous instrumentalities. No one can
seriously debate the issue. New Jersey has a strong
public interest in protecting the public from the violence
and social cost associated with the criminal misuse of
firearms.
Civil
Procedure > … > Justiciability > Standing > Third
Party Standing
Civil
Procedure > … > Justiciability > Standing > General
Tamal Banton
Page 5 of 24
359 N.J. Super. 291, *291; 820 A.2d 27, **27; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89, ***1
Overview
HN12[
assessment of the defendant’s responsibility for
conditions creating the risk of harm and an analysis of
whether the defendant had sufficient control,
opportunity, and ability to have avoided the risk of harm.
] Standing, Third Party Standing
In deciding a question of standing, New Jersey courts
must balance conflicting considerations and weigh
questions of remoteness and degree. New Jersey cases
historically take a much more liberal approach on the
issue of standing than federal cases. New Jersey courts
deem the threshold for standing to be fairly low.
Standing involves a threshold determination which
governs the ability of a party to initiate and maintain an
action before the court. New Jersey courts confer
standing in those cases where the party’s concern with
the subject matter of litigation evidences a sufficient
stake and real adverseness. In making that
determination, the courts give due weight to the
interests of individual justice, along with the public
interest, always bearing in mind that, throughout New
Jersey law, New Jersey courts have sweepingly
rejected procedural frustrations in favor of just and
expeditious determinations on the ultimate merits. A
financial interest in the outcome of litigation is ordinarily
sufficient to confer standing. However, a litigant does
not have standing to assert a right of a third party.
Torts > … > Elements > Duty > General Overview
HN13[
] Elements, Duty
The determination of the existence of a duty is ultimately
a question of fairness and policy. Resolution of the issue
requires a court to balance several factors, including the
nature of the underlying risk of harm, that is, its
foreseeability and severity; the defendant’s ability to
exercise care to prevent the harm; the relationship of
the parties; and the public interest in the proposed
solution. Of all these factors, foreseeability of the risk of
harm is the fundamental element. The foreseeability
factor is predicated on the defendant’s knowledge of the
risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis.
Ultimately, whether or not a duty exists implicates the
fundamental question of whether the plaintiff’s interests
are entitled to legal protection against defendant’s
conduct. The imposition of a duty thus requires an
evaluation and a balancing of the conflicting interests of
the respective parties. That assessment necessarily
includes an examination of the relationship between and
among the parties. Also implicated in this analysis is an
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Weapons
Offenses > Trafficking in Weapons > Exports,
Imports & Manufacture
Torts > … > Affirmative Duty to Act > Types of
Special Relationships > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal
Offenses > Weapons Offenses > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Weapons
Offenses > Use of Weapons > General Overview
Torts > … > Elements > Duty > General Overview
HN14[ ] Trafficking in Weapons, Exports, Imports
& Manufacture
In one case, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that gun
manufacturers owe no duty under Pennsylvania law to a
city to protect its citizens from the unlawful use of
firearms by third parties. However, other courts
addressing the duty issue have held to the contrary. The
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
agrees with the latter set of courts that gun
manufacturers owe a duty to cities to protect citizens
from the unlawful use of firearms by third parties.
Torts > … > Affirmative Duty to Act > Types of
Special Relationships > General Overview
Torts > … > Elements > Duty > General Overview
HN15[ ] Affirmative Duty to Act, Types of Special
Relationships
When the risk of harm from a defendant’s negligence is
that posed by third parties, the plaintiff claiming
negligence may be required to demonstrate that the
defendant was in a position to know or have reason to
know, from past experience, that there was a likelihood
of conduct on the part of third persons in general which
Tamal Banton
Page 6 of 24
359 N.J. Super. 291, *291; 820 A.2d 27, **27; 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 89, ***1
was likely to endanger the safety of another.
order to protect the general welfare of its citizens
comprehends the power to make such laws effective. A
municipal body also has a common-law right to abate a
public nuisance by summary proceedings.
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Amicus Curiae
HN16[
] Appeals, Amicus Curiae
Governments > Local Governments > Claims By &
Against
An amicus curiae may not interject new issues, but must
accept the issues as framed and presented by the
parties.
HN18[
] Local Governments, Claims By & Against
The “Municipal Cost Recovery Rule” holds that a public
body cannot recover the cost of governmental
emergency services necessitated by a tortfeasor’s
conduct, absent legislative authority.
Criminal Law &
Procedure > … > Nuisances > Public Health
Nuisances > General Overview
Governments > Local Governments > Police Power
Governments > Local Governments > Employees &
Officials
Real Property Law > … > Nuisance > Types of
Nuisances > Public Nuisances
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Miscellaneous
Offenses > Nuisances > General Overview
Governments > Local Governments > Claims By &
Against
Real Property Law > Torts > Nuisance > General
Overview
Governments > Legislation > Statutory Remedies &
Rights
Governments > Local Governments > Fire
Departments
HN19[ ]
Officials
Real Property
Law > … > Nuisance > Remedies > Summary
Abatement
HN17[
Torts > … > General Premises
Liability > Defenses > Firefighters’ Rule
Local
Governments,
Employees
&
The fireman’s rule has now been abrogated by statute.
N.J. Stat. A …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades