Case Study Memo on Common Law
This is a bit of a long time coming, but the introduction to using a case study was a multi-step process. For substantive application of the common law that we have learned so far, Jared and I requested access for use of the environmental case studies from the Stanford Case Study materials, available here: https://law.stanford.edu/environmental-and-natural-resources-law-policy-program-enrlp/case-studies/. We chose the Methyl Bromide toxic pesticide case study, because the cases we have covered so far concern toxic chemicals like PCBs. Methyl bromide is a toxic chemical used extensively in agricultural production in California, with strawberries as the primary crop subject to the pesticide. The case study describes the manufacturers of the chemical, how it is used, and the acute and chronic toxicity. For the first assignment, we chose Framework Three, which addresses the pesticides effect on the migrant workers on strawberry farms.
The first step was to assign the case study materials to the students to read, and then have them show up to class prepared for discussion.
In class, we added to Framework Three to insert the students as attorneys in the situation. The students are attorneys in a firm, so we asked them what they wanted the name of the firm to be, and the resulting vote decided on Parton and Associates. As junior attorneys, they hear about how workers on Big Berry Farm are experiencing health effects from the use of methyl bromide. Their task is to investigate a possible case to present to us, their supervising attorneys. In their investigation they find the workers are actually contracted to work on Big Berry Farm and others, and are not direct employees of the farm. They also learn about the two United States manufacturers where Big Berry Farm gets their methyl bromide from. From a pool of ten workers on Big Berry Farm, all of them experience the milder symptoms associated with methyl bromide exposure, but two of them developed kidney disease, and another three developed liver disease, which studies have shown could be long term effects of methyl bromide. With this information, they must decide which parties should be sued and with what cause(s) of action.
About a week before, I gave the students a chart of all the common law causes of action and their elements that we have learned so far. During this class, I printed a copy out for everyone to use as a reference and we worked together to see which of these claims could potentially apply. Jared and I believed it was important to emphasize to the class that there is no right answer, just logical reasoning. The discussion served the purpose of parsing out the step by step process necessary to accomplish their task. One of the students suggested Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities as a possible cause of action against Big Berry Farm, so we went through the elements and practiced finding supporting or refuting facts in the case study. The students brought up pertinent facts like how the fumigation process was so deadly it killed every organism in the soil and people were not allowed near the fields for 72 hours by threat of armed guards. Class ended right as we were debating whether the methyl bromide fumigation process was of common use or if it should be classified as abnormally dangerous.
After the discussion, students were required to post a reflection on the process of analyzing the methyl bromide case study and tell us how they feel about taking on their first written assignment. The feedback was anonymous so the students could feel comfortable telling us what they really think. Here are some excerpts of the feedback:
“I was not fully comfortable with my knowledge of law, but as we discussed in class I am use to their being a right and wrong answer so law being not so straightforward is new for me. I did however like how we walked through the scenario as though we are the people suing the berry farm. It allowed me to gain a better understanding of the thought process behind suing someone and all of the different facts you have to look at when trying to apply common law to each scenario. I also believe that it was extremely helpful that in class this time we picked out which causes of action to apply to the case instead of yall telling us each ones and how to apply them. It forced me to think differently and I did enjoy it. “
“Based on Thursday's class, I feel pretty confident in my ability of selecting appropriate causes of actions and which party to sue. However, I am not entirely sure I can do it on my own. It helps a lot to talk it out and hear other opinions. Common law on paper is "easy" to grasp, but when applying the framework, there is more gray area that I cannot always see by myself.”
“Some of the detailed applications to the case and why you would choose one cause of action over another is still a little confusing to me. I feel like having another example of having to work out the applications of common law would be helpful to apply in groups again. The general reasons behind each I understand, but some of the nuances are harder to fully grasp. The idea of there not really being a fully correct answer to a scenario is kind of hard to grasp as well, so I think I would appreciate more applicatory practices with these elements of applying common law.”
“Although I wish we had more time to go over each cause of action that was applicable, seeing the process of finding evidence for each component was very helpful. I am still a little confused on how these arguments are presented within a memo (structure and level of detail needed), but hopefully we'll cover this before the assignment. I think I would also be more comfortable with this process if we did another practice, but gave time for everyone to individually establish which causes of action could be applicable.”
“I feel we were adequately prepared for the fact pattern through previous class discussions, and found the resource of the Common Law Causes of Action Handout to be especially helpful. Partnered with my notes on this assignment and other case studies, I have a better understanding of common law than prior to this course.”
“[R]eading and working through the case of methyl bromide in the workplace by looking through each of the causes of action individually was crucial to my understanding of the application of common law. I have also found it helpful to work in small groups before engaging in a full-class discussion, as this has helped to build my confidence in understanding the material.”
Based on the feedback, Jared and I decided to devote thirty minutes of the following class to further instruction on approaching the memo. I pulled up a memo I wrote on the board and explained what is expected of them in the assignemnt. Then, I decided to open-forum demonstrate my thought process when undertaking a memo task like theirs. I chose to sue the manufacturer, and I chose to show how I would analyze negligence. I wrote out the issue; whether the manufacturer could be sued for negligence in the manufacture, packaging, and sale of the toxic methyl bromide pesticide. Then I wrote the elements of negligence on the board. I asked the students what a reasonable manufacturer should do when creating and selling a pesticide. The students chimed in with obligations of the manufacturer in development, testing, warning, and marketing. We talked together about how we would need more information on how the manufacturer operated to determine how and if they violated those duties. We discussed but-for and proximate causation, and if the harm was foreseeable and a substantial factor from the possible breach(es) of duty. Through the class, I saw lots of nodding and furious note taking, so hopefully that helped bridge the gap some of the students described in their feedback. The students also indicated how much small group discussions aided their confidence and communal critical thinking. I will continue to incorporate that more into our class times.
After this second class discussion on the methyl bromide case study, I provided an example memo, as did Jared, and we created a rubric for their memo together. Their memo is due Tuesday, February 24th, and I am looking forward to seeing what they write! Stay posted for updates.
