Question

1. Do some quick research about New York Courts. What is unique about how the courts are titled as compared to most other state courts in the country

2. What types of legal authorities are Basso and Navedo? Are they primary sources? If so what type primary? Are they secondary sources? If so what type of secondary sources?

3. What are the Facts and Procedural History of Basso? What are the Facts and Procedural History of Navedo? This answer should be in a separate paragraph with 2 headings: “Facts” and “Procedural History”.

4. What is the legal issue in each case? This should be stated in its own section with a heading “Issue(s)”

5. What are the rule(s) of law that each court seems to rely on in reaching its decision? This should be stated in its own paragraph: “Rules of Law”

6. Why do you think the court reached its overall decision? This should be answered in a separate paragraph: “Analysis”

7. What was the outcome of each case? This should be stated in its own paragraph “Conclusion.”

Answer 1

Do some quick research about New York Courts. What is unique about how the courts are titled as compared to most other state courts in the country?

New York seems to have “Surrogate’s Court” in every county, in most states they are called Probate Courts, I work in a probate court and it is everything under the example of their surrogate’s court. Then they have city, town, and village courts which are completely different in other states. We have municipals and city courts and mayors courts.

What types of legal authorities are Basso and Navedo? Are they primary sources? If so what type primary? Are they secondary sources? If so what type of secondary sources?

They are both primary and secondary sources. There is use of restatements and law review from a previous case to allude to the, “a landowner must act as a reasonable man in maintaining his property…” law. Both contain case law which is a primary source.

What are the Facts and Procedural History of Basso? What are the Facts and Procedural History of Navedo? This answer should be in a separate paragraph with 2 headings: “Facts” and “Procedural History”.

Facts

Jeffrey Shawcross fell into a 40-foot crevice. Miller and another rode his motorcycle up into the Ice mountains. Miller helped get shawcross out of the crevice at around 10 p.m. In Navedo, the plaintiff slipped at a supermarket on a puddle of detergent on the floor. Someone had heard the manager say that they told someone to clean it up a while ago. It was a bunch of hearsay evidence.

Procedural History

In Basso, The Ice Cave Mountains is a large scenic park on a tourist attraction on leased property. During the summer the Mountains are open to the public from 8 a.m to a half hour until dark with admission. In Navedo, the plaintiff slipped at a supermarket on a puddle of detergent on the floor that had been there for a while.

What is the legal issue in each case? This should be stated in its own section with a heading “Issue(s)”

Issues

In Basso, the legal issue was that Shawcross seemed to be a trespasser to the Ice Cave Mountains, the biggest problem was determining if he had the right to be up there or not or if he was actually trespassing. The issue of liability came into play for the Ice Cave Mountains. In Navedo, the legal issue seemed to be as if there was no concrete evidence if the manager/store had any idea of the detergent being there. It was all hearsay on whether or not the manager actually knew it was there, there was not enough evidence.

What are the rule(s) of law that each court seems to rely on in reaching its decision? This should be stated in its own paragraph: “Rules of Law”

The rules of law in each court seemed to be similar. Each case ended up following the same trend.

Why do you think the court reached its overall decision? This should be answered in a separate paragraph: “Analysis”

I think the court reached its overall decision based on the evidence provided. In both of them, each case lacked evidence and was very hearsay. In the first case, no one really knew if Shawcross had been a trespasser or not, in the second case no one could prove if the detergent was actually acknowledged beforehand.

What was the outcome of each case? This should be stated in its own paragraph “Conclusion.”

Each case followed the same reinstatement that all property must be maintained safely for the public use.