Dear Mr.

Baird:

It was pleasure to meet you last week.As you requested,I have analyzed the grounds for a

defense against Ricki Jones of her claim for strict liability and negligence.This letter summarizes

the facts I understand them and my analysis of New Goverland law concerning strict liability and

negligence.My reaserch indicates that we could make viable defense that it was comparative

negigence or even not negigence in your handling of the presence of the Pindia parasite. We can

also defense that the tap water you provide is not unreasonably dangerous.

Factual Background

Before I discuss the law,Id like to review my understanding of facts.As you know,the factual

background critically important,as your defense is based on my understanding of these facts.

As I understand the facts,24 year-old Samuel Jones was an AIDS sufferer.His healgth worsened

after he drank water containing Pindia which was provided by Metro City and he died on

september 16,1996.

The Metro City Council became aware of Pindia in October of 1993.With the help of the special

funding,Metro City began to test the water twice a year.However, because of the poor condition of

the citys pipes,the population of parasite had steadily increased.

In June of 1996,the levels of Pindia rose above the federal threshold levels of minimal health

risk(300 per gallon).On July 29,1996,according to the request of the Federal Water Safety

Advisory(FWSA),Metro City sent notice to residents and published the warning on the local

newspaper,Metro City Times.With the help of the emergency funds from the FWSA,most

deteiorated section of water pipes are replaced.By August 1996,the levels of Pindia is at 400 per

gallon,which is a safe level for general pubic consumption but poses a potentially serious health

risk for those with weakened immune systems.

On September 1,1996,the city began to flush the water pipes with chlorine to kill Pindia.On

September 15, the level of Pindia had reduced to 278 Pindia per gallon.However, three people was

died as a result of the high level Pindia in that period.Sam Jones was among them.

Tyler Johnson is a volunteer peer counselor at an AIDS clinic located in Metrol City,a friend of

Samuel Jones.During a witness interview,he stated that after the city issued an advisory about the

potential risk of the water,they posted fliers about the tap water safety in the clinic.They also tried

to inform Samuel Jones and his parents the situation but did not succeed.He believe that Sam read
the poster or already knew the water situation,but he just lost the hope to live any longer.

Hunter Williams,a specialist in parasitology. During a witness interview,he stated that similar to

the effects of parasite ,chlorine can result in upset stomach,nausea and diarrhea and it can also

adversely affect those with weakened immune systems.He believes that Metro City weigh the

potential effects of using of chlorine and reacted resposibly to the Pindia problem.

Legal Analysis

Based on these facts,I have researched New Goverland Civil Code.Although the law is not

entirely clear,we have a viable defense against Ricki Jones of her claim for negligence strict

liability

Under the New Goverland law of negligence,a defendant may sustain legal reponsibility for

the injuries of the plaintiff when 1)defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care;2)defendant breached

that duty;3)defendants breach caused plaintiffs injuries;and 4)plaintiff suffered damages as a

result.

However,here,according the statement of the witness Hunter Williams, we can argue that Metro

City did not breach that duty.As what he said, similar to the effects of parasite ,chlorine can result

in upset stomach,nausea and diarrhea and it can also adversely affect those with weakened

immune systems. He believes that Metro City weigh the potential effects of using of chlorine and

reacted resposibly to the Pindia problem.This means that even the water pipes was flushed with

chlorine before the levels of Pindia became a health risk, Samuel Jones, as one of those with

weakened immune systems, could also be severely damaged by the chemical chlorine.

Another argument we can make is comparative negilgence.Under this legal theory,it can help us

determine the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff and reduce the ammount of damages.

In Bryant vs. Metro City College,the court held that an adequate warning would not have affected

the conduct of the user may be enough to completely eliminate liability.In this case, Metro City

has made sufficient notification by sending notice to residents and publishing the warning on the

local newspaper,Metro City Times.According to the statements of Tyler Johnson, they also tried to

call Samuel Jones and his parents to inform the situation and posted fliers about the tap water

safety in the clinic .It is probable that Sam read the poster in the clinic or already knew the water

situation,but he just lost the hope to live any longer.As a result,his death could be attributed, in

part, to his own fault.

 The last issue we can argue is that Metro City should not sustain the product liability for the tap

water is not unreasonable dangerous. Although the levels of Pindia has achieved 400 per gallon,it

is a safe level for general pubic consumption.On this level,only those with weak immune systems

are at risk.However, Metro City has provided adequate information to the public about Pindia and

those few people has a good opportinuty to boil the water as a result to avoid the effect of Pindia.

Legal Recommendations

Based on the forgoing legal analysis,it is possible the court would support your argument of

comparative negilgence.However,there is a second alternative available to you given the costly

and time-consuming of a trail.You can choose to enter into out-of-court settlement negotiations

with the plaintiff.Under this option,I would meet with Ricki Jones lawyer and make an settlement

with him out-of-court.Id like to achieve a settlement that the damages would be as little as

possible.Nevertheless,if Ricki Jones unwilling to enter into an out-of-court settlement,the option to

precceed is still preserved.

After you have had chance to think the options,please call me to schedule the next meeting so

that we can discussed this case in more detail.Id like to help you make a decision that is best for

your position.Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Dingo