Preview

irac- negligence

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
387 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
irac- negligence
Week 2
Negligence
Negligence
Negligence is defined as persons or business’s actions that make them liable to foreseeable consequences of their actions. There are certain steps that the plaintiff needs to prove negligence on the defendant’s behalf. These elements are duty of care, breach of this duty of care, plaintiff suffered injury, defendant caused the injury, and it was the proximate cause for the plaintiffs’ injury (Cheeseman, 2013). In the case of the Bryntesen family we need to prove the elements for negligent action. Did Lithia Motors and Camp Automotive owe a duty of care to the family; they did when they signed the contract. Did they breach this duty of care: they did when the employee did not properly file their papers. Their dealerships actions lead to the family being held at gunpoint. This shows that they were negligent in their actions. To prove this, plaintiff needs to prove the cause of negligence. There are two causes of negligence the cause in effect and proximate cause. According to Cheeseman, H.R Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (8th ed.). (2013), the defendant’s actions must be the actual cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. We can prove this with “but for” the defendants actions the plaintiff would not have been injured. In this case the family would not have been held at gunpoint “but for” the negligent actions of the employee for not correctly filing the loaner papers. Proximate cause says that the defendant is not liable for all the damages caused by their actions. The test for proximate cause is foreseeability. According to "Foreseeability" (2013), foreseeability “Reasonable anticipation of the likely consequences of an act, a failure to act, or an occurrence.” If actual cause for the plaintiff’s injury is the dealership but not the proximate cause then the dealership, employees, and BMW are not held liable for their actions.
Conclusion, since negligence is an

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Culpepper V. Weihrauch KG

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages

    On August 12, 1996, Plaintiff, Ann Culpepper, filled action against defendant, Hermann Weihrauch KG, ETC., seeking damages for injuries she sustained after an accidental shooting from the gun she owned that was manufactured by Weihrauch. Ann Culpepper imposed liability on Weihrauch under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine of 1979. This doctrine provides liability “if a company manufactured, designed or sold a defective product, which by unreasonably unsafe conditions, injured someone or damaged their property when such product, unaltered, was put to its intended use.”…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mimi’s husband does have a valid claim to sue the partnership as Beelzebub’s guardian. This accident occurred during the ordinary course of business. Beelzebub was injured while his mother Mimi was meeting with a client. This proves that this accident occurred over the ordinary course of business. According to the text, “In most states, the liability is essentially unlimited, because the acts of one partner in the ordinary course of business subject the other partners to personal liability [UPA 305]”(Miller, 3-2E). In addition, “Joint and several liability means that the party has the option of suing all of the partners together (jointly) or one or more of the partners separately (severally)”(Miller, 3-2E). This means that Beelzebub’s father can sue the entire partnership or individual partners in the…

    • 690 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Legal Memo PA110

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In regards to our case no. 210204 Justin King v. Anheuser Busch Companies, Inc. I find Contributory Negligence to be the appropriate Affirmative Defensive action. Mr. King exacerbated his injury when he took it upon himself to loosen the wires, to his own admittance. Justin King was also swerving and/or switching lanes frequently perhaps not paying attention or distracted by his recent Music Record deal signing with MCI Records. I chose to say contributory negligence because we cannot deny that cases of beer were not properly secured in our vehicle, proving that it was some percentage of our own default.…

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.…

    • 610 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The first element is proven by the fact that FF was driving the car that rear-ended DD and caused the accident to occur and the hitchhiker's death. The second element is proven as well due to the fact that under ordinary course of events this type of accident would not occur if the FF had not been negligent by running into DD’s vehicle. Since both of these elements can be proven by the Plaintiff’s evidence, FF is liable of negligence for the…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Summary

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The tort of negligence in this scenario includes the five essential elements of negligence, duty, breach of duty, the breach being the cause of injury, proximate, and the resulting damages (Lucas, 2008). In a case of negligence the individual or company may be held liable not only with negligence but sometimes with trespass, injury, and even mental or emotional harm (Lucas, 2008). However, the law requires these elements are proven in order to recover in a law suit against a torfeasor for negligence (Melvin,…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to Cheeseman (2013), negligence is a "A doctrine that says a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions" (p.91). The elements of negligence include:…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lavr Johnson Wheaton Case

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Wheaton is liable for the manager’s injuries. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior Liability. The principle in this case would be Wheaton and the agent would be LaVar Johnson. Under this doctrine an employer is liable for torts committed by agents, who are employees and who commit the tort while acting within the scope their employment, in addition, it also makes the principal liable both for an employees' negligence and for her intentional torts (pg. 944).…

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Riley vs Standard Oil

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Million acting as chauffer is told to drive company vehicle 2.5 miles to pick up paint and return to the mill. Million picks up the paint, sees scrap wood that his sister had mentioned she needed. After passing the mill, Million continues to his sisters home (four blocks in the opposite direction) where he unloads the scrap wood and starts driving back to the mill. On his way back, Million hits and severely injures infant Riley. Riley family sues Standard Oil of New York and Million for negligence.…

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Plaintiff V. Case Brief

    • 353 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant, a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty, but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a third party. Said plan did not cover any previous damage. Defendant neglected to charge the plaintiff for the service plan. Approximately one month later, Plaintiff wrecked the car. Plaintiff had the car towed to a repair shop which claimed to have found damage from a previous accident. The car was repaired, subsequently and continually driven by Plaintiff. Repairs were paid through an insurance claim, minus the deductible. Plaintiff claimed that it has previous damage made the car dangerous to drive, but could not prove the dealership knew of the prior damage. The District Court granted summary judgement on all accounts to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals on the basis that an error in judgement…

    • 353 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    You Decide

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages

    "The Court in Bricker v. Snook, (1989) Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 stated “It is the universally accepted rule that an employer is liable for personal injuries or the death of another person, or injury to another person's property caused by his employee's negligence, misconduct, misfeasance, or wrongful, improper, or unlawful acts, when done within the scope of his authority, whether the authority is express or implied, or inferred from the general course of business…

    • 764 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Elements Of Negligence

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page

    Negligence law states that a person or an organization is generally liable when they negligently injure others.…

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident?…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics