Brief Alissa Jamison v Summer Infant USA Inc the Parties Who

Brief Alissa Jamison v. Summer Infant (USA), Inc

the Parties (Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?)

the History of the case (Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision?)

the Facts (What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue?)

the Plaintiff\'s Theory (Why he thinks he is right)

the Defendant\'s Theory (Why she thinks she is right)

the Legal Issue (a yes or no question)

the Holding of the Court (Yes or no--answers the legal issue).

The Reasoning of the Court (i.e.:  what facts and laws did the court rely on to decide the case; why the case was decided in the winner\'s favor; why did the other side lose)

What do you think? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?

Solution

Parties: Alissa Jamison and Mandy Brantley are plaintiff. Summer Infant is the defendant. The appellant is the defendant in this case - Summer Infant. The appelle will be all the plaintiffs involved in this class action suit.

History of thr case - In this case the issue was parents using video baby monitors were surprised to find out that neighbors could have been watching their children as a result of the unencrypted signals. The parents filed a legal suit against the maker of these monitors and retailer selling these monitors.

One of the plaintiffs - Jamison - placed a minotor in her children\'s room. One day, Jamison saw a neighbor from across the street on one of her receiving units.

The facts - As mentioned the plaintiff\'s privacy was intruded due to the fact that neighbors were able to see her on their monitor.

Plaintiff\'s theory - (i) omission of warnings reagrding the material fact that the monior braodcasts unencrypted signals (ii) negligence in manufacturing and distribution

Defendant\'s theory - (i) there is no proof of a deceptive act or practice by the defendant (ii) consumer fraud claim under the ICFA was preempted by FCC regulations

Legal issue and holding of court - The court did not find any merit in defendant\'s arguments. The court held that defendants’ compliance with the technical labeling requirements of the FCC did not protect them from allegations that their marketing and advertising practices were unfair or deceptive.

Resoning of the court - The court said that the federal law can preempt state laws under the following circumstances - (i) when a state law is expressly preempted by Congress, (ii) when a state law regulates conduct in a field where Congress has enacted law that intends that the federal government occupy the field exclusively, or (iii) when a state law actually conflicts with federal law.

Yes, the case was decided correctly because the plaintiffs suffered from emotional distress due to the fact that there was a breach of duty on Summer Infant\'s part.