MEE1 Ben should be charged with Embezzlement and Larceny. Burglary Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. Ben went to the neighbor’s house around 10pm, noticed a ground-floor window was ajar, pushed the window fully open and began to climb into the house with the specific intent to retrieve the painting. Although the painting belonged to Ben, the act of going over to the neighbor’s house at night, and then breaking and entering into his house through the window to retrieve the painting constitutes a burglary. Therefore, Ben should be charged for Burglary for the incident at the neighbor’s house. Larceny Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. Ben exchanged his painting with the neighbor’s unsigned print art for a limited as both parties understood the exchange to be. In other words, there was consent between the parties. Here, after Ben was arrested for the incident at the neighbor’s house at nighttime, he became angry and wanted to sell off the neighbor’s art. Ben’ intent went from a temporary taking of the neighbor’s personal property to an intent to permanently deprive the neighbor of his art by selling it to the art dealer. Ben did not commit the act of a trespassory taking and carrying away of the neighbor’s art because the neighbor gave it to him in exchange for his art for safekeeping. Therefore, given the fact that Ben had consent to be in possession of the art to begin with he will not be charged for larceny because of how he obtained regardless of what he ended up doing which was to permanently deprive him. Embezzlement Embezzlement occurs where a defendant starts out having the victim’s consent to have the property but commits embezzlement by converting the property to his own use. Here, Ben started out by having consent from the neighbor to have his art and display it on his wall in his house, but committed embezzlement by converting the property to his own use when he went to the art dealer to sell it because he was angry for being arrested. Therefore, Ben will likely be charged with embezzlement for the neighbor’s art. Receiving Stolen Property To be guilty of receiving stolen property, the art dealer must (1) receive control of stolen property, (2) have knowledge that the property is stolen, and (3) have the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Property that in unlawfully obtained through larceny or embezzlement is stolen property. Knowledge that the property is stolen require that the defendant have actual subjective knowledge that the property has been stolen. Here, the art dealer received stolen property because Ben permanently deprived the neighbor of his art and sold it to the art dealer. The art dealer does not have actual knowledge that the art is stolen, but he has subjective knowledge that the art may be stolen because Ben offered to sell the art at a very low price, which should have raised an alarm for the art dealer. Additionally, the art dealer often investigated the ownership history of her purchases but did not for this one and proceeded to sell it to an art collector for 10x her purchase price. Last, the art dealer essentially had the intent to deprive the owner of the property by selling it to a foreign art collector. Therefore, the art dealer will likely be charged for receiving stolen property. MEE 2 1. The issue here is whether or not the physician is liable to the woman under tort law. To determine if the physician is liable for negligence, there must be (1) a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) that breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff injuries, and (4) damages. A doctor has a duty to conform to a specific standard of care in order to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to patients. Here, the doctor has a duty to act as an ordinarily prudent doctor would in a similar situation (against the national standard). The doctor did conform to this duty by telling the woman that her blood pressure was elevated and that she should take a prescription drug that will help lower it, but the woman did not want to take it. The woman insisted on a dietary change and a natural remedy to help lower her blood pressure. The doctor insisted on the prescription drug, and said that natural remedies are not as reliable, but ultimately offered the woman an alternative which was an herbal supplement made from a particular herb that can reduce blood pressure. The next element is to determine if the doctor breached his duty to the woman. It may be argued that the physician should not have offered the alternative natural remedy because it wasn’t reliable as he had stated to the woman. Here, the doctor recommended a natural remedy, and the doctor relied on research that showed the herbal supplement helps reduce blood pressure. Furthermore, the doctor’s treatment of the woman to determine why the white blood cell count was elevated and referral to a specialist was within the standard medical practice. The doctor was able to determine through tests that the kidney was inflamed, but it did not reveal what the root cause was of the elevated levels. This does not breach the physician’s duty to the woman. It was only after the urologist specialists at a major medical center realized that several patients with inflamed kidneys and elevated white blood cells count was because of the toxicity in the herbal supplement. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the physician is not liable to the man under tort law. 2. The issue here is whether the woman can hold the five US companies under strict liability since they have been found not to be negligent by investigators. In order to find a company liable under the strict liability doctrine, there must be: (1) a commercial seller; (2) a defective product; (3) that was defective when it left the hands of the defendants; (4) that was foreseeably used; (4) that caused; (5) damages. Here, the five companies are commercial sellers of the herbal supplement. The product would be considered to be a manufacturing defect since some of the supplements had contaminants and some did not. The product was deemed to be defective when it left the companies warehouses because research shows that the contamination occurred in the export warehouses of Country Z, before it reached the US distributors. It is foreseeable that the herbal supplement will be consumed by consumers. The product actually caused the woman's kidney damage since this is undisputed. However, the woman will be unable to prove which of the US distributors were responsible for the herbal supplement that she took. Therefore, though she actually suffered damages, she will be unable to hold them liable unless she could prove which of the US companies supplied her the herbal supplement. Moreover, the investigators concluded that the companies were not negligent. In addition, some packages had no contaminants whatsoever. Therefore, given the inability to determine which of the companies supplied the woman her herbal supplements, she will unlikely be able to find them liable as a group under the market share liability doctrine. 3. The issue here is whether the health food store is liable to the woman under tort law. The health food store sold the defective herbal supplement to the woman which led to her injuries. In relation to the processing companies where it could not be determined which company caused the harm, it can be determined that the woman purchased the herbal tea from the specified health food store. There is no requirement for the woman to identify the particular product in question because she only needs to show that (1) the store sold the defective product, and (2) that product caused her harm. Here, the store sold a defective product which was the herbal supplement which caused the woman’s harm. Therefore, the health food store will more likely than not be liable to the woman under the strict products liability doctrine.
