Case Law Bonus Post: Nasty Brewing Company’s Famous IPA v. R. Swanson & Co.

I’m not outlining this one since it's fairly short and straightforward. This one is related to Motown Car in that it also says that people’s actions should be evaluated based on what they reasonably should have done, not what they actually did. One of the things Motown Car told us was that actors must “have known or had reason to know of the underlying facts that created the risk.” Nasty Brewing helps explain what “had reason to know of” means. Since everyone is expected to give their surroundings the attention a reasonable person would, everyone “has reason to know of” facts they would have known about if they paid that kind of attention to their surroundings.