State Statute 101 Case Study
The result for the direct motion for Danny Driver (DD) will be granted, but the direct verdict for (FF) will not be granted. The court must determine whether the hitchhiker's estate had a prima facie case for negligence and could satisfy the burden of production to prove that both DD and FF breached their duty the day of the car accident that lead to the death of the hitchhiker.
The two statutes that are relevant to the case are state statute 101 and state statute 102. State statute 101 states that it is a misdemeanor in the state to operate a tractor trailer truck without a special (Class IV) license. State statute 102 states that it is a misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle in the rain without headlights.
Directed Verdict for Danny …show more content…
In order to determine the role of DD’s violation of the statute in the car accident the three-part negligence per se test must be applied to determine if . The three elements of the negligence per se test: whether the statute protects a class of individuals of which the Plaintiff is a member, protects against harm of the sort that the Plaintiff suffered, is an appropriate standard for use in the case. Applying this statute to the case it can be determined that the statute was created to protect the class of individuals such as the hitchhiker, i.e. passengers in other vehicles while DD was driving on the road in a tractor trailer truck which he was not licensed to drive. The state statute 101 was not created to prevent the type of harm that was suffered by the Plaintiff, the hitchhiker’s injury was caused by FF’s rear-ending DD and not by DD driving a tractor trailer truck. This is also not the appropriate standard for use in this case because the harm was not the result of violation of the standard. Therefore, the reasonable person standard should be applied instead of negligence per …show more content…
Applying negligence per se shows that the plaintiff was in the class of individuals who were protected by the statute. However, the harm that occurred was not the harm that was supposed to be prevented by the statute. Since the harm that occurred by the accident was not meant to be prevented by the statute it is not apply to the case at hand. However, Res Ipsa Loquitur which literally means “the thing speaks for itself” can be applied. Res Ipsa Loquitur means that the plaintiff cannot prove how defendant breached his duty, but the mere occurrence of the accident is itself circumstantial evidence of breach that occurred. There is a two-part test for Res Ipsa Loquitur: the defendant had control of the object that caused the injury to the plaintiff and the ordinary course of events in this type of accident would not occur without negligence.
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
The two statutes that are relevant to the case are state statute 101 and state statute 102. State statute 101 states that it is a misdemeanor in the state to operate a tractor trailer truck without a special (Class IV) license. State statute 102 states that it is a misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle in the rain without headlights.
Directed Verdict for Danny …show more content…
In order to determine the role of DD’s violation of the statute in the car accident the three-part negligence per se test must be applied to determine if . The three elements of the negligence per se test: whether the statute protects a class of individuals of which the Plaintiff is a member, protects against harm of the sort that the Plaintiff suffered, is an appropriate standard for use in the case. Applying this statute to the case it can be determined that the statute was created to protect the class of individuals such as the hitchhiker, i.e. passengers in other vehicles while DD was driving on the road in a tractor trailer truck which he was not licensed to drive. The state statute 101 was not created to prevent the type of harm that was suffered by the Plaintiff, the hitchhiker’s injury was caused by FF’s rear-ending DD and not by DD driving a tractor trailer truck. This is also not the appropriate standard for use in this case because the harm was not the result of violation of the standard. Therefore, the reasonable person standard should be applied instead of negligence per …show more content…
Applying negligence per se shows that the plaintiff was in the class of individuals who were protected by the statute. However, the harm that occurred was not the harm that was supposed to be prevented by the statute. Since the harm that occurred by the accident was not meant to be prevented by the statute it is not apply to the case at hand. However, Res Ipsa Loquitur which literally means “the thing speaks for itself” can be applied. Res Ipsa Loquitur means that the plaintiff cannot prove how defendant breached his duty, but the mere occurrence of the accident is itself circumstantial evidence of breach that occurred. There is a two-part test for Res Ipsa Loquitur: the defendant had control of the object that caused the injury to the plaintiff and the ordinary course of events in this type of accident would not occur without negligence.
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