Preview

Does Susie have a case against Ruthless

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
584 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Does Susie have a case against Ruthless
Negligence is a particular type of tort action that involves something the law calls a "duty of care." The standard of care depends on the facts and circumstances of the case but, generally, the duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us should behave responsibly and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would behave.

To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.

The law looks at two types of causation—actual cause and proximate cause. Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.

First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary's car which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry's negligence is both the actual and proximate cause of Mary's injury.

Second case: Henry is stopped at the red light. Marvin is talking on his cell phone and fails to stop his car, rear-ending Henry, and sending his car into the intersection where it collides with Mary's car, injuring Mary. Henry is the actual, but not the legal cause, of Mary's injury. Marvin's actions are the proximate cause of Mary's injury; his actions are the actual cause, sometimes called the "cause in fact", of the harm.

Susie Marks was seriously injured when the truck in which she was riding failed to negotiate a left turn. On the evening in question, Susie got a ride with Orson to the Elsewhere City Park, where she met her friend, Jerry, and his girlfriend, Kate. Orson said he would pick Susie up at 11:00 p.m. when the park closed. Jerry was a minor who had only been licensed to drive for a few

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Proximate cause exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability.…

    • 4685 Words
    • 31 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    You Decide

    • 694 Words
    • 3 Pages

    As stated in the book Law, Business, and Society, by Tony McAdams, a negligence claims requires…

    • 694 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Proximate cause (or legal cause) can be defined as the point at which (in a chain of events) the negligent party caused injury to the plaintiff, but no longer has legal responsibility for his/or her own actions. This was the case in 1928, when Helen Palsgraf was injured by a scale, which fell do to an explosion on the platform cause by a concealed package of fireworks, dislodged from another individual’s arm. Since there appeared to be no “immediate harm” to the plaintiff and that the fireworks are what actually started this chain of events, Justice Cardozo ruled in favor of The Long Island Railroad Company.…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Proximate cause or the legal cause is “a defendant’s breach of duty is the legal cause of a harm if it was reasonably foreseeable and substantial factor in producing harm, without too many intervening causes.” The purpose of the proximate cause is to find the primary cause within foreseeable reason. Cardozo did not think the case had proximate cause because the workers could not have reasonably foreseen that the package was loaded with explosives. Andrews saw it differently in that the accident could not have happen without the worker pushing the man then causing the accident. He argued that there was proximate cause because there were too many intervening causes in the case that so there was negligence of the worker pulling the man on the train caused the injury so the action had to be in place for the injury to be foreseen.…

    • 505 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order to determine whether or not there is a factual causal connection between the injuries inflicted upon X during the fight and the eventual loss of X’s business, we need to look at the method of the conditio sine qua non theory and determine if there was actually a factual causal nexus. According to Van der Merwe and Olivier, conditio sine qua non theory is when an act is the cause of a result if the act cannot be thought away without the result also disappearing. This means that for an act to be the cause of a result, the result must not exist when the cause is mentally removed. This factual test for causation was accepted in the case of International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley. In the case of X, if the fight between X and Y…

    • 1449 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Torts

    • 18542 Words
    • 1 Page

    Intentional Interference With Person or Property A. Intent 2 types 1. Specific Intent consciously desiring the physical result 2. General Intent knowledge that the result is substantially certainty to follow -The Restatement places torts somewhat on a continuum with Negligence The most culpable form of intent would be a specific intent, or morally apprehensible form of misconduct you swing a baseball bat to hit someone in the face General intent would be next on the continuum knowing with substantial certainty Recklessness- Callous disregard ( I dont give a crap. Gross Negligence- aware of the harm but you are indifferent to it Negligence- foreseeable risk of harm but you fail to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances Most culpable (responsible/punishable)…

    • 18542 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Laws 310 Week 3

    • 340 Words
    • 2 Pages

    1. You are the judge in the case. Does Susie have a case against Ruthless? Is Ruthless the proximate cause of Susie’s injuries?…

    • 340 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Torts Breakdown of Elements

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages

    2. Negligence is the failure of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person to exercise due care, resulting in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence torts do not require intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the level necessary to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. To determine if someone should be found liable for a negligence tort, a reasonable person standard is used. If the defendant 's behavior is found to be less careful than behavior a reasonable person would exhibit, that defendant can be found liable for damages.…

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Does the law of proximate cause apply in these circumstances to determine that the defendant is liable for negligence?…

    • 752 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Long Island Railroad). Negligence is the legal term given to actions that breach the duty of care that one owes another according to the law. The court considered that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to Helen Palsgraf, and therefore no negligence was committed. The court found that the risk of the harm was unforeseeable. According to The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, “If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists” (2014, pg.224). The court found that the actions which occurred were not only unforeseeable in to the objective observer, but also to Helen Palsgraf. This is to say that the risk was unforeseeable to an objective or reasonably subjective person in her position. The court found that the proximity of the plaintiff to the cause of action was irrelevant. Long Island Railroad actions or inactions caused no negligence to Helen Palsgraf. Even if there was negligence toward someone else, this is not a basis for a claim by Helen…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kelly V. Movie Theater

    • 1965 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages.…

    • 1965 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Criminal Law Midterm

    • 601 Words
    • 3 Pages

    A defendant’s actions are the proximate cause of the victim’s death if the result occurs as a consequence of the defendant’s act. There is no other casually connected act. The defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of the harm.…

    • 601 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    (3) Causation – Proving that the victim’s injuries were in fact caused by the accident, and…

    • 495 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Jacobsen vs Nike

    • 1484 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Tort Law - Law of Negligence: It involves inadvertent or unintentionally careless conduct causing injury or damage to another person or his property. Four required elements or ingredients must be established by the plaintiff to succeed in a negligence action. Failure to establish any one of these four will lead to dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.1…

    • 1484 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Negligence is defined as “the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) …

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays