Case Research Assessment
Baker College

Ruiz v. Safeway is a case involving both a Tort; a civil wrong that has caused someone else to suffer harm, and negligence also known as professional malpractice; the failure to meet a standard of conduct that is recognized by a profession (Freedictionary, 2012). Ruiz v. Safeway was filed by Michael and Lydia Ruiz against Safeway, Inc. under business code 25602.1 and it was eventually argued in First Appellate District, Division Five, Sonoma County, Super.Ct.No. SCV-245045 (Law.com, 2012).
Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz’s complaint against Safeway involved the death of their son, Alexander Ruiz. Alexander was killed when, Dylan Morse, an 18-year-old alleged drunk driver struck his car. Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz wanted to hold Safeway responsible because, shortly before the accident, a Safeway clerk sold alcohol to Mr. Morse’s passenger, Ryne Spitzer (Law.com, 2012). On February 13, 2009 Morse and Spitzer made plans to attend a frat party. They both drank beer and rum until the party was broken up by the police around midnight. Morse and Spitzer returned to their dorm until Spitzer suggested that they buy more beer. Morse agreed and they arrived at the Safeway around 2 am. Upon entering the Safeway the two proceeded to the beer aisle and then went to check out. At checkout the clerk, Amy Gonzalez, who had 12 years of experience, asked for proof of age to purchase the alcohol. Spitzer gave her a California driver’s license that indicated that he was over the legal age. The features of the man pictured matched Spitzer. Gonzalez proceeded with the sale while unaware that the license was a forgery. Spitzer paid for the alcohol with his check card and was given a receipt. He and Morse then went back to their car and headed back to their dorm. During the drive Spitzer took one of the beers out of the bag and handed it to Morse. Morse estimated that he drank half of it on the ride back. Afterward, Morse allegedly caused the accident that killed Alexander Ruiz (Law.com, 2012).
Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz filed a complaint seeking damages for wrongful death against Morse, Spitzer, and Safeway. The complaint against Safeway was based on the fact that the law prohibited the sale of alcohol to an obliviously intoxicated minor. Safeway filed a motion for summary of judgment saying that they didn’t sell the beer to Morse, the beer was sold to Spitzer, and that neither Morse nor Spitzer appeared to be intoxicated (Law.com, 2012).
The trial court held a hearing to determine if Safeway was to be held liable for selling alcohol to an obliviously intoxicated minor under section 25602.1. The court went on to rule that there was no triable issue to say that Safeway sold alcohol to an obliviously intoxicated minor. The court ruled in favor for summary judgment as a matter of law. After the court ruled in favor of Safeway, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz filed an appeal that has yet to be held (Law.com, 2012).
The reason for this judgment is that, while a Safeway clerk sold alcohol to Spitzer, they didn’t sell it to Morse. It was only after leaving and entering the vehicle that Spitzer provided the beer to Morse and, due to this Safeway was not at fault. Furthermore, neither Morse nor Spitzer appeared to be intoxicated while Spitzer purchased the alcohol. During her 12 years of experience, Gonzalez, was trained, as well as retrained, to not sell alcohol to anyone who appeared to be intoxicated. Gonzalez was also trained to detect fake driver’s licenses. The driver’s license provided to her by Spitzer matched all of the qualifications to appear real including a holographic sticker. Therefore, Safeway, Inc. was not at fault for the death of Alexander Ruiz (Law.com, 2012).
Robinson v. SSW, Inc. involves product liability; the legal liability a company has for making or selling a faulty product (Findlaw, 2012). Robinson v. SSW was filed by Carolyn Robinson against SSW, Inc. for the wrongful death of her husband. It was tried in Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. CGC-06-457534 (Jenkins, 2012).
Mrs. Robinson’s complaint against SSW involved the death of her husband, Douglas G. Robinson. Mr. Robinson died on November 5, 2005 at the age of 64 due to mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. On November 1, 2006 Mrs. Robinson, and her children, filed a complaint for wrongful death claiming that Mr. Robinson’s death was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Mrs. Robinsons claim stated that her husband’s death was caused by the asbestos in the boilers that he helped manufacture while working for SSW, Inc. Mr. Robinson first worked as a boiler tender and repairman in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1969, then he worked for Tri-Valley growers from 1969 to 1971, and then again from 1973 to 2000. Mr. Robinson was maintenance, including all aspects of cleaning and repair, for all boilers housed at Plant No. 7. Tri-Valley growers would, in 1973, purchase boilers from SSW, Inc. A SSW cooperate representative acknowledge that the boilers made during this time-period may have been equipped with parts that contained asbestos produced by third parties manufacturers. Shipping manifests confirmed that as least some of the parts of the boilers contained asbestos. The boilers did not have warning labels warning of the dangers of asbestos. On June 1, 2002 SSW dissolved as a corporation and 4 years later on November 1, 2006 this lawsuit was filed in California court several defendants; however, not SSW. On February 18, 2009 SSW was added in a Doe amendment (Jenkins, 2012).
On August 27, 2010, SSW moved for summary judgment on two grounds; SSW claimed that because it was a dissolved as a Nebraska company it was subject to Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute and immune to lawsuits and that there was no evidence that Mr. Robinson ever came into contact with the asbestos. The Plaintiffs claimed that SSW was subject to California's corporate survival statute and not Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute. They also had the testimony of Lindon Brumley who was one of Mr. Robinson’s former co-workers. Mr. Brumly claimed that the repair work done by Mr. Robinson, between 1973 and 2000, caused dust when he would remove and replace gaskets and insulation. The Plaintiffs were also able to produce shipping records that showed that the parts contained asbestos (Jenkins, 2012).
After a hearing on SSW's summary judgment motion the court decided that Mrs. Robinson’s claim was stopped by Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute. The court ruled that there was no triable issue regarding Mr. Robinson’s exposure to asbestos-containing products at the fault of SSW. The court judged in favor of SSW (Jenkins, 2012).
The reason for this judgment is that, while Mr. Robinson was likely exposed to asbestos-containing products, because SSW dissolved in 2002 and, due to Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute, could only be held at fault until June 2007. Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute states that a dissolved company could only be sued as a corporate entity for injuries within 5 years of it dissolving. SSW was not added to the lawsuit until February 2009 and therefore was protected by Nebraska's five-year corporate survival statute (Jenkins, 2012). The people v. Franzen is a case involving a crime; an act committed in violation of the law (Freedictionary.com, 2012). The people v. Franzen was tried in Superior Court of Santa Clara County and involved Franzen being charged with the selling of methamphetamine (Rushing, 2012). Detective Mark Barry of the Santa Clara police, on the behalf of the department, has posted an ad on Craig’s List looking to purchase meth. He received a text message from a seller claiming to have meth for sale. Detective Barry didn’t precede with the sale at that time; however, he continued to send text messaged showing his interest with purchasing the drug. On March 2, 2012 he received a response text message expressing the willingness to supply the drug. Detective Barry requested an eighth of an ounce of the drug through text messages and a phone call with a male who identified himself as Shannon. The decided on the price of $225 plus a $25 delivery charge because it was coming from San Francisco (Rushing, 2012). Detective Barry made arrangements with another man, who identified himself as Joe, at the same number to deliver the drug to a coffee shop on March 2nd; however, the sale did not go through. Detective Barry made arrangements for the product to be delivered the next day to an apartment complex in Santa Clara that the police department had used before. Joe agreed to the arrangement. The next day, around one in the afternoon, Detective Barry received a phone call from Joe saying that he would meet him at the address around 3:30 pm. Detective Barry then traced the number to Yvette Franzen. Detective Barry then got a call saying that the sellers would be waiting for him in a blue Honda Civic with black rims (Rushing, 2012). Eventually, Detective Barry received a phone call from Joe saying that he was waiting for him. Detective Barry arrived around 3:15 pm and saw the car parked, alone, in a carport. He called the seller and a female answered and stated that they were at the location. Detective Barry approached the passenger side of the car and asked if the person was Joe. The driver, who would later be identified as Jeffrey Thomas Umbertas, claimed to be Joe. The defendant then asked Detective Barry to get into the back seat of the car. Detective Barry’s department did not allow him to comply with that request so he made his way around to the driver’s side of the car. Detective Barry and Umbertas made the sale of the substance that would later be confirmed as methamphetamine (Rushing, 2012). After speaking with the people in the car for another minute Detective Barry signaled for the other officers to make the arrest. The officers, who were in pre-planned locations, came in and made the arrest. After the arrest the defendant was found to be carrying a cell phone in her bra. The number to the phone matched the phone number he had been communicating with (Rushing 2012). The defendant was charged with transportation, sale, or distribution of methamphetamine, possession of controlled substance paraphernalia, and using and being under the influence of methamphetamine. After showing the evidence in court the defendant plead no contest to the second and third counts and the jury found her guilty on the first count. The defendant was given a year in county jail and with a year of probation. The defendant has filed an appeal (Rushing, 2012). The reason for this judgment is because the defendant obviously possessed methamphetamine. It was given to Detective Barry by her and Umbertas and she was in possession of the phone used to arrange the sale. The defendant was caught red-handed by the police (Rushing, 2012).

References:
Crime - definition of crime by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.. (n.d.). Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crime
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Jenkins, J. (2012). Robinson v. SSW, Inc. (2012), Cal.App.4th . findlaw.com. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2012/a130174.html
Law.com. (2012). Ruiz v. Safeway, Inc.. Law.com | Legal News, Technology, In-House Counsel, & Small Firms Legal Resources. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202574830898&
Product Liability legal definition of Product Liability. Product Liability synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.. (n.d.). Legal Dictionary. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Product+Liability
Rushing, P. (2012). People v. Franzen (2012) , Cal.App.4th. findlaw.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2012/h037217.html
Schaeffer, P. (2012). Workers Compensation, Disability, Attorney, Law, California. The Law Offices of Peter M. Schaeffer Workers Compensation and Personal Injury attorney, with practice concentrating on California Workers Compensation and Employment Law including Wrongful Termination and Sexual Harassment. . Retrieved November 12, 2012, from http://pslaw.com/workers_comp_valuation.htm
What is Product Liability? - FindLaw. (2012). Accidents and Injuries - FindLaw. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-product- liability.html