Solve the given cases using IRAC format -
Case1- Gonzalez v. Garcia
Gonzalez, Garcia and Longest were co-workers at a power plant who carpooled to work. One day after work, when Garcia was driving, they went to a nearby boat landing and drank beer and tequila for three hours. They then went to nearby liquor store and, over Gonzalez's protests, bought more tequila. Gonzalez called his wife to come pick hint up, but she was not home. They then went to a bar where Garcia and Longest drank tequila and Gonzalez drank a beer. Gonzalez then insisted on driving Garcia's car, and drove Longest home. After helping Longest into his house, he returned to the car to find Garcia in the driver's seat. Garcia refused to allow Gonzalez to drive. Gonzalez got into the passenger seat and fell asleep. Garcia then got into a one-car accident, injuring Gonzalez. Garcia's blood alcohol rate was .20%. In the case of Gonzalez v. Garcia, what result? Discuss fully.
Case 2- Lanuzzi v. Phillip Morris
Mrs. Lanuzzi began smoking in 1951 when she was fifteen. She smoked two packs a day until her death from lung cancer in 1984. She had tried several times, unsuccessfully, to quit. Her family brought a wrongful death and products liability suit against the cigarette manufacturer, Phillip Morris. The evidence showed that there was some suspicion that cigarette smoking could cause cancer as early as the 1950's. Some internal documents of Phillip Morris indicated that they knew that there was some evidence of the causal connection between cigarette use and illness, but that they did not warn consumers of this information. The FDA did not require that warnings of the risk of illness be placed on
Case3-
Alvin Davenport, who leased a condominium at the Cotton Hope Plantation on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, complained to Cotton Hope that the floodlights at the bottom of the stairs to his unit were not working. Before Cotton Hope got around to fixing the floodlights, Davenport was injured when he tried to descend the stairs one night. He fell after attempting to place his foot on what appeared to be a step but actually was a shadow caused by the inoperative floodlights. Davenport filed a negligence lawsuit against Cotton Hope in a South Carolina court. The court directed a verdict against him after concluding that he had assumed the risk of injury. Davenport appealed, and that state's intermediate appellate court reversed. The appellate court reasoned that assumption of risk was no longer an independent and total defense, but was instead behavior that should be considered in a determination of the parties' relative fault under South Carolina's comparative negligence rule. Accordingly, the appellate court held that the assumption of risk issue should have gone to the jury. Cotton Hope appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. How did that court rule on the question whether assumption remains a total defense or, instead, is behavior to be evaluated under the state's comparative negligence rule?