1. The "C.A. 1" under the title of the case means it is a US Court of Appeals case from the First Circuit in Massachusetts. Why is this case in federal court?

2. Why does the court talk about its "sense of the current state of tort law in Massachusetts" and how this case "would be treated by the Massachusetts courts," as if it were not in the state at all but somehow outside?

3. What rule of law is in play here as to the defendants' liability?

4. This is a tragic case-three boys died in a house fire. Speaking dispassionately-if not heartlessly-though, did the fire actually cost Mr. Laaperi, or did he lose $3.4 million as the result of his sons' deaths? Does it make sense that he should become a millionaire as a result? Who ends up paying this amount?
5. Is it likely that smoke-alarm manufactures and sellers changed the instructions as a result of this case?