Question 1. The issue as rephrased by the Court in Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. was: does the impact rule preclude a claim for damages for emotional distress caused by the consumption of a foreign substance in a beverage product where the plaintiff suffers no accompanying physical injuries? The Court answered the certified question as rephrased in the negative and quashed in part the decision made by the Fifth District Court of Appeals and allowed jury awards to the plaintiffs despite the fact that they had suffered no physical injury. The judgment was valid in that the limited interpretation of law to allow for damages only in cases of physical injury does not take into consideration according to the Court the fact that in some instances, psychological and emotional damages or emotional damages are as debilitating as physical damages.
Question 2. Four of the main functions of law are maintaining social control, protecting public order, resolving disputes, and protecting certainty and durability of systems (What are the..., 2011). Maintaining social control is represented in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) in which the Supreme Court considered for the first time the extent to which the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and the press limits the award of damages in the libel action brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. A case in which the Court took up questions of maintaining public order was Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) in which the Supreme Court decided Establishment Clause disputes involving such matters as school prayers and Bible reading in public schools.
To resolve disputes, the Court often takes up cases in which allegations of breach of contract are presented. One such case was Jones v. Star Credit Corp. (1969) (Miller & Jentz, 2000) heard by the Supreme Court of New York in which the plaintiffs were welfare recipients who purchased a freezer at...