An Introduction to American CourtsAn Introduction to American Courts

Judge Tom C. RawlingsJudge Tom C. RawlingsJudge, Juvenile CourtsJudge, Juvenile CourtsMiddle Judicial CircuitMiddle Judicial CircuitSandersville, GA USASandersville, GA USAtom@sandersville.nettom@sandersville.netwww.tomrawlings.comwww.tomrawlings.com

Georgia’s Middle Judicial CircuitGeorgia’s Middle Judicial Circuit

Five Counties in East Five Counties in East Central GeorgiaCentral Georgia

2,300 square miles with 2,300 square miles with 100,000 residents100,000 residents

                          

Judicial Review: The Role of the Judicial Review: The Role of the CourtsCourts

““The judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE The judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." nor WILL but merely judgment." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78.Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78.

““It is emphatically the province and It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” say what the law is.” Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison 5 5

U.S. 137 (1803)U.S. 137 (1803)

State Court of Appeals

JuvenileCourt

Superior Court

ProbateCourt

MisdemeanorCourt

AdministrativeLaw Judge

MagistrateCourt

State Supreme

Court

United States Court Of Appeals

State SupremeCourt

United StatesDistrict Court

United States Supreme Court

Sources of LawSources of Law

United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution United States TreatiesUnited States Treaties United States StatutesUnited States Statutes State Constitutions State Constitutions State StatutesState Statutes Common Law PrinciplesCommon Law Principles

• Have independent force but are also Have independent force but are also used to interpret the other sources of used to interpret the other sources of law.law.

Common LawCommon Law

Developed in England from custom Developed in England from custom and tradition in each community.and tradition in each community.

Became a “System” only when Kings Became a “System” only when Kings (and Courts) determined consistency (and Courts) determined consistency was needed.was needed.

In 19In 19thth Century, most American Century, most American states codified common law states codified common law principles.principles.

Case Example Case Example

FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. Parents sued manufacturer of rat Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.poison.

Argument: Company could have Argument: Company could have added ingredient that would have made added ingredient that would have made child vomit.child vomit.

STATUTE: Makes a company liable for STATUTE: Makes a company liable for damages caused by a product that is damages caused by a product that is not “merchantable” or “reasonably not “merchantable” or “reasonably suited to the use intended.”suited to the use intended.”

Example: Example: Banks v. ICI AmericasBanks v. ICI AmericasGeorgia Supreme Court, 1994Georgia Supreme Court, 1994

FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. FACTS: Child ate rat poison and died. Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.Parents sued manufacturer of rat poison.

STATUTE: “The manufacturer of any personal STATUTE: “The manufacturer of any personal property . . . shall be liable in tort [civilly property . . . shall be liable in tort [civilly responsible], irrespective of privity, to any responsible], irrespective of privity, to any natural person who may use, consume, or natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property and reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or property who suffers injury to his person or property because the property when sold by the because the property when sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and manufacturer was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” OCGA the injury sustained.” OCGA § 51-1-11§ 51-1-11

Argument: Company could have added Argument: Company could have added ingredient that would have made child vomit.ingredient that would have made child vomit.

Question PresentedQuestion Presented

What does “merchantable What does “merchantable and reasonably suited to the and reasonably suited to the use intended” mean?use intended” mean?

Romanian equivalent: Romanian equivalent: vandabil in conditii de vandabil in conditii de sigurantasiguranta

Court’s AnalysisCourt’s Analysis

Court relies on The Court relies on The RestatementRestatement of Torts, of Torts, legal treatises, and legal treatises, and CasesCases from other from other jurisdictionsjurisdictions

Answer: In determining whether a product Answer: In determining whether a product is “merchantable” and “reasonably suited” is “merchantable” and “reasonably suited” under the statute, the Court and jury can under the statute, the Court and jury can consider whether there were alternative consider whether there were alternative designs available to the manufacturer at designs available to the manufacturer at the time the product was manufactured. the time the product was manufactured. Court must balance risk against usefulness Court must balance risk against usefulness of product.of product.

ResultResult Court relies on Court relies on common law ideascommon law ideas to to

“add clothes” to a “naked” statute.“add clothes” to a “naked” statute. Through use of common law Through use of common law

concepts, Court can expand or limit a concepts, Court can expand or limit a statute’s meaning.statute’s meaning.

Other lower courts in Georgia must Other lower courts in Georgia must now follow this analysis when now follow this analysis when considering Product Liability casesconsidering Product Liability cases

Critical IssueCritical Issue

Can Parties Review Can Parties Review the Law and Know the Law and Know How to Conduct How to Conduct Their Activities to Their Activities to Avoid Criminal or Avoid Criminal or Civil Liability?Civil Liability?

Stare Decisis: The Rule of Stare Decisis: The Rule of PrecedentPrecedent

Promotes the evenhanded, predictable, Promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal and consistent development of legal principlesprinciples

Fosters reliance on judicial decisionsFosters reliance on judicial decisions Contributes to the actual and perceived Contributes to the actual and perceived

integrity of the judicial process. integrity of the judicial process. Adhering to precedent "is usually the wise Adhering to precedent "is usually the wise

policy, because in most matters it is more policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right be settled than it be settled right

• PAYNE V. TENNESSEEPAYNE V. TENNESSEE, 501 US 808 (1991), 501 US 808 (1991)